LIVING IN THE FUTURE:COUPLE REFUSE TO PUT CLOCKS BACK AND LIVE IN THEIR OWN TIMEZONE-AND CLAIM IT'S MADE THEM HEALTHIER

By Daily Mail Reporter 14th December 2010

It's a debate that rages each year when the clocks go back - should Britain extend summer time to create lighter days?

The answer, according to a couple who have already made the leap themselves, is undoubtedly yes.

John and Janys Warren stopped putting their clocks back in the autumn when they realised the darker days were triggering his cluster headaches.

Time travellers: Janys and John Warren from Weston-super-Mare, in Somerset, have spent the last four years in British Summertime all year round

They now live an hour ahead of everybody else during the winter and say the move has drastically reduced their heating and lighting bills.

Mrs Warren, 66, said: 'We have lower fuel bills and far more usable daylight hours with evenings not seeming endless.

'We don't put the heating on until we get up and by then it is warmer anyway. We've saved about one third on our heating and lighting bills.

'The winter doesn't seem so long and I don't seem to feel so tired in the evening. It's nice to be wide awake later.'

The couple, from St Georges near Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, say they don't have to fit in with the rest of the world now their seven children have grown up.

They started living permanently in British Summer Time - known as 'Double British Summer Time - four years ago.

Experts believe changes in the body's biological clock could trigger severe headaches.

Safer: Accidents on dark roads would be cut if Double British Summertime was adopted, say supporters

Mr Warren, 70, the retired general manager of a refurbishment company, said: 'We stared it because my cluster headaches were getting really bad and I could get up to eight attacks a day.

'I was receiving palliative care and being given morphine in hospital to reduce the pain.

'Then Janys heard someone who suffered from the same thing went to Australia, did not change his clocks, and did not have an episode.

'We decided not to change our clocks and it worked for me as well. It has eased my headaches - but more than that, we just found that being an hour ahead worked for us.'

On a typical day, the couple get up at 8.30am 'their time' - 7.30am in 'our' time - and go to bed at 11pm, which is 10pm for the rest of us.

Mr Warren said: 'It just a far more pleasant way to live through the winter. You get far more daylight and you don't get endless dark evening.

'The only time it can be an issue is when you're out at an evening function and it means we are technically staying up an hour later than everyone else. But we live a quiet life these days and don't do much of that.'

As a result of their clock change, the combined gas and electricity bill for their three bedroomed semi-detached home is just £700 a year.

Mrs Warren added: "People who come to the house sometimes look at the clock and say "Goodness, it's time to go", and we explain.

'Of course one of the things it makes a difference to is parish council meetings.

'They don't start for us until 8.30pm, but it means they can sometimes go on until 10.30pm or 11pm.

'Even if the UK stayed on British Summer Time we would be closer to Europe Time, which has got to be an improvement for trade and tourism.

'We now get up at about 9.30am to 10am in the winter, which for the rest of the world is an hour earlier of course.'

Parliament is now looking into extending British Summer Time into winter after The Energy and Climate Change Committee heard a talk in favour of the change in October.

Campaigners claim it could boost tourism by up to £4billion and create 80,000 jobs.

They also say brighter evenings would prevent at least 100 road deaths a year and save the NHS around £138million annually, by reducing accidents in the darkness.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338435/John-Janys-Warren-refused-clocks-live-future.html#ixzz184tGiCxx

Skin was the first organ to evolve

• 12 December 2010 New Scientist Magazine issue 2790.

IN THE evolution of organs, skin came first. The discovery that even sponges have a proto-skin shows that the separation of insides from outsides in multicellular animals was key to their evolution.

It has been known since the 1960s that sponges have a distinct outer layer of cells, or epithelium. But because sponges lack the genes involved in expelling molecules, it was assumed that this was not a functional organ. Sally Leys and her team at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, have now shown otherwise. When they grew flat sponges on thin membranes, with liquid above and below, they found that the epithelium kept some molecules out, sometimes only allowing 0.8 per cent through in 3 hours (PLoS ONE, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015040).

Sponges were the first multicellular animals to evolve, so the finding means all complex life has a skin. Leys thinks the organ was vital as it isolated animals' insides from their surroundings. As a result, cells could send chemical signals to each other without interference, setting the stage for complex organs to evolve.

Scott Nichols of the University of California, Berkeley, says the findings hint that sponges were the ancestors of other animals rather than a sister group.

PRINCIPLE OF ASTROLOGY PROVEN TO BE SCIENTIFIC:PLANETARY POSITION IMPRINTS BIOLOGICAL CLOCKS OF MAMMALS

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Mention the word "astrology" and skeptics go into an epileptic fit. The idea that someone's personality could be imprinted at birth according to the position of the sun, moon and planets has long been derided as "quackery" by the so-called "scientific" community which resists any notion based on holistic connections between individuals and the cosmos.

According to the conventional view, your genes and your parenting determine your personality, and the position of planet Earth at the time of your birth has nothing to do with it.

Then again, conventional scientists don't believe the position of the moon has anything to do with life on Earth, either. They dismiss the wisdom that farmers have known for ages -- that planting seeds or transplanting living plants in harmony with the moon cycles results in higher crop yields. Even the seeds inside humans are strongly influenced by the moon, as menstruation cycles and moon cycles are closely synchronized (28 days, roughly).

Researchers demonstrate scientific principle of astrology

Skeptics must be further bewildered by the new research published in Nature Neuroscience and conducted at Vanderbilt University which unintentionally provides scientific support for the fundamental principle of astrology -- namely, that the position of the planets at your time of birth influences your personality.

In this study, not only did the birth month impact personality; it also resulted in measurable functional changes in the brain.

This study, conducted on mice, showed that mice born in the winter showed a "consistent slowing" of their daytime activity. They were also more susceptible to symptoms that we might call "Seasonal Affective Disorder."

The study was carried out by Professor of Biological Sciences Douglas McMahon, graduate student Chris Ciarleglio, post-doctoral fellow Karen Gamble and two additional undergraduate students, none of whom believe in astrology, apparently. They do, of course, believe in science, which is why all their study findings have been draped in the language of science even though the findings are essentially supporting principles of astrology.

"What is particularly striking about our results is the fact that the imprinting affects both the animal's behavior and the cycling of the neurons in the master biological clock in their brains," said Ciarleglio. This is one of the core principles of astrology: That the position of the planets at the time of your birth (which might be called the "season" of your birth) can actually result in changes in your brain physiology which impact lifelong behavior.

Once again, such an idea sounds preposterous to the scientifically trained, unless of course they discover it for themselves, at which point it's all suddenly very "scientific." Instead of calling it "astrology," they're now referring to it as "seasonal biology."

How to discredit real science

It all reminds me of the discovery of cold fusion in 1989 by Fleishmann and Pons, who were widely ridiculed by the arrogant hot fusion researchers who tried to destroy the credibility (and careers) of cold fusion researchers (http://www.naturalnews.com/025925_c...). After the very idea of "cold fusion" was attacked and demolished by these arrogant scientists, it soon returned under a new name: Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR).

LENR has now been verified as true by none other than the U.S. Navy -- along with hundreds of other researchers around the world (see link above). And yet, even today, the conventional scientific community still insists cold fusion doesn't exist and cold fusion researchers are frauds.

Just as there is a solid scientific basis for LENR, there is a scientific basis for astrology, too. The relationship between the Earth, Moon and Sun naturally alter light exposure, temperature, gravitational pull and other conditions that may be sensed by living organisms. To believe in astrology, all that's really required is to grasp the basic concepts of the interrelationships between all living things. Does the position of the sun or moon influence life on Earth? Of course it does: Life as we know it wouldn't even exist without the moon tugging on Earth and preventing its rotational axis from shifting around to the point where radical changes in seasonal temperatures would make life far more challenging. (The moon, in other words, is one of the key "stabilizers" of life on planet Earth because it tends to stabilize the seasons and keep the Earth on a steady rotational plane.)

None of this, of course, means that the position of Saturn today is going to make you win the lottery or find a new love. That's the tabloid version of astrology, not real astrology.

Don't confuse tabloid astrology with real astrology

Even astronomy has its tabloid versions, too, which are entirely non-scientific. For example, every model of our solar system that I've ever seen is a wildly inaccurate tabloid version of reality, with planet sizes ridiculously exaggerated and planet distances not depicted to scale. These silly, non-scientific solar system models imprint a kind of solar system mythology into the minds of schoolchildren and even school teachers. Virtually no one outside the communities of astrophysics and astronomy has any real grasp of the enormity of not merely our solar system, but of our galaxy and the space between neighboring galaxies.

To show a giant sun the size of a basketball, with a depiction of the Earth as a marble-sized planet three inches away is the astronomical equivalent of a gimmicky horoscope claiming you're going to win the lottery today because you were born under the sign of Pisces. Both are fictions. And both are an insult to real science.

In fact, even the whole idea that an "electron" is a piece of physical matter, made up of other "particles" is an insult to real science. The sobering truth of the matter is that "particle physics" doesn't have much to do with actual particles at all. It's all about energies that might, on occasion, vibrate in just the right way so that they momentarily appear to take on the illusion of a particle as measured by our observers -- observers who inevitably alter the outcome of the entire experiment, by the way, once again proving the interrelated nature of things in our universe, including observer and experiment.

The horoscope predictions in the Sunday paper -- as well as much of the hilarious mythology found in the modern description of an atom -- are both simplified, comic-book versions of a larger truth -- the truth that we live in a holistic universe where every bit of physical matter, every bit of energy and every conscious mind impacts the rest of the universe in subtle ways. There is no such thing as an individual who is isolated from the cosmos, because we are of the cosmos and we exist as the physical manifestations of energies that, for our lifetimes, are momentarily organized as beings.

We are made of star stuff, says Carl Sagan. He he's right: We are not only made of star stuff, we are influenced by that stuff, too. And finally, modern science is beginning to catch up to this greater truth that astrologers have known since the dawn of human existence on our tiny planet.

FLOURIDE, ASPARTAME, AND AGENDA 21

FOX NUTRASWEET EQUAL ASPARTAME

Happy pills used by thousands 'raise the risk of heart disease'

By Daily Mail Reporter 1st December 2010

Powerful anti-depressants taken by hundreds of thousands of people could significantly raise the chances of heart disease, scientists have found.

Men and women taking tricyclics are 35 per cent more likely to develop a range of cardiac problems, from heart attacks to strokes.

They also have a greater chance of needing bypass surgery and other heart operations than those taking different anti-depressants or none at all.

Warning: Amitriptyline, one of the tricyclic anti-depressants, could raise the risk of heart disease

The drugs, such as Amitriptyline and Lofepramine, are taken by 300,000 to 400,000 Britons.

As well as depression, they are given to treat migraines, obsessive compulsive disorder, nerve pain and panic attacks.

They fell out of favour after the advent of Prozac and other similar pills, but are becoming increasingly popular again as the newer drugs are not suitable for everyone and have been linked to suicide.

In the first study to look at the effect of the drugs in large numbers of healthy men and women, researchers tracked almost 15,000 people for an average of eight years.

Dr Mark Hamer, one of the researchers from University College London, said: ‘Our study is the first to contain a representative sample of the whole community.

‘The majority of previous work in this area has focused on clinical cardiac patients, so studies in healthy participants are very important.

Side effects: Patients taking tricyclics are 35 per cent more likely to develop a range of cardiac problems

‘Tricyclics have a number of side effects – they are linked to increased blood
pressure, weight gain and diabetes and these are all risk factors for cardiovascular disease.’

The linking of tricyclics, but not more modern anti-depressants, to heart problems means the effect cannot be explained by depression itself being bad for the heart.

Tricyclics are often given to patients when Prozac and other Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors do not work. SSRIs have been linked to suicide, suicidal thoughts and self-harm.

This led to advice in 2004 that they should not be routinely prescribed for mild depression.

The following year doctors were advised to not prescribe most SSRIs as a ‘first line’ remedy for depression in teenagers.

One tricyclic, Lofepramine, is often given to elderly patients and is thought to have fewer side-effects than others.

Comeback: The drugs fell out of fashion with the advent of Prozac

Professor Tim Kendall, of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said: ‘There is no side effect-free treatment.

‘Before people run off and take drugs there are quite a lot of safe things they can do to help themselves, like exercise, guided self-help programmes, problem-solving therapies and just getting going.

‘This is more evidence that they need to think about medication carefully before just jumping in.’

Dr Hamer, whose research is published in the European Heart Journal, stressed that people should not stop taking the drugs without speaking to their GP.

He added: ‘People taking the anti-depressants are also more likely to smoke, be overweight and do little or no physical activity.

‘By giving up smoking, losing weight, and becoming more active they can reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease two to three-fold, which largely outweighs the risks of taking the medications.

‘In addition, physical exercise and weight loss can improve symptoms of depression and anxiety.’

The British Heart Foundation said more research was needed for the link to be confirmed.

The charity’s spokesman Amy Thompson said: ‘Anti-depressants are beneficial for many people and so it would be unwise for anyone taking them to stop based on the results of this study alone.’

Despite the guidance about SSRIs, it is claimed that the drugs are massively over-prescribed, with many doctors choosing to hand out tablets rather than condemn patients to a long wait for counselling.

RADIATION SCIENTISTS AGREE TSA NAKED BODY SCANNERS COULD CAUSE BREAST CANCER AND SPERM MUTATIONS

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The news about the potential health dangers of the TSA's naked body scanners just keeps getting worse. An increasing number of doctors and scientists are going public with their warnings about the health implications of subjecting yourself to naked body scanners. These include Dr Russell Blaylock (see below) as well as several professors from the University of California who are experts in X-ray imaging.

At the same time, some internet bloggers are insisting that the TSA's naked body scanners pose no health risks because air travelers are subjected to higher levels of radiation by simply enduring high-altitude flights where cosmic radiation isn't filtered out by the full thickness of the Earth's atmosphere. This comparison, however, is inaccurate: The TSA's body scanners focus radiation on the skin and organs near the skinwhereas cosmic radiation during high-altitude flights is distributed across the entire mass of your body.

Comparing the total radiation exposure across your entire body to machine-emitted radiation exposure that focuses its ionizing radiation primarily on your skin is like comparing apples and oranges. You'll see this explained further, below, in the words of these scientists.

As Dr Russell Blaylock (www.BlaylockReport.com) recently reported:

The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administration's new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and enhanced pat-downs brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from thegovernment and I'm here to help you. So, what is all the concern really about - will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama's science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.

The letter Dr Blaylock is referring to is from the Faculty of the University of California, San Francisco and is signed by Doctors John Sedat Ph.D., David Agard, Ph.D., Marc Shuman, M.D., Robert Stroud, Ph.D.

You can download or view the full letter from NaturalNews here (PDF):
http://www.NaturalNews.com/files/TS...

Even though it was written in April of this year, this letter has received increased publicity lately due to the TSA's sudden expansion of naked body scanners in airports as well as the agency's arrogant insistence that such machines will soon be used at bus stations, railway stations and other entrance points for mass transportation.

In this NaturalNews article, I highlight the most important warnings from this letter and explain, in plain language, what these scientists are trying to say.

The letter that the TSA doesn't want you to read

Once again, this letter was written by Drs John Sedat Ph.D., David Agard, Ph.D., Marc Shuman, M.D., Robert Stroud, Ph.D., all from the University of California.

Here is their background as described in the letter:

Dr. Sedat is a Professor Emeritus in Biochemistry and Biophysics at the University of California, San Francisco, with expertise in imaging. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences. The other cosigners include Dr Marc Shuman, and internationally well known and respected cancer expert and UCSF professor, as well as Drs David Agard and Robert Stroud, who are UCSF Professors, X-ray crystallographers, imagingexperts and NAS members.

Here are the highlights of the letter along with my comments and explanations:

"We are writing to call your attention to serious concerns about the potential health risks of the recently adopted whole body backscatter X-rayairport security scanners. This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary
screening step for all air travel passengers."

Translation: The naked body scanners may be dangerous to your health.

"Our overriding concern is the extent to which the safety of this scanning device has
been adequately demonstrated. This can only be determined by a meeting of an impartial panel of experts that would include medical physicists and radiation biologists at which all of the available relevant data is reviewed."

Translation: The safety of these naked body scanners has never been demonstrated, and especially not by an independent panel of qualified scientists.

"The physics of these X-rays is very telling: the X-rays are Compton-Scattering off outer molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds)."

Translation: The ionizing radiation emitted by these devices can alter your DNA.

"Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies (28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high."

Translation: The danger of these devices is significantly higher than what might be assumed from the TOTAL radiation emissions. This is why those who claim "you get more radiation just from flying" are flat-out wrong in their conclusions.

"This comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X-rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent
tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight / volume, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high."

Translation: This is a further explanation of why the ionizing radiation from the naked body scanners may pose a much higher risk of cancer (two orders of magnitude higher!) than what might be assumed from the total radiation emissions.

"In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist. A search,
ultimately finding top FDA radiation physics staff, suggests that the relevant radiation
quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)]
has not been characterized. Instead an indirect test (Air Kerma) was made that
emphasized the whole body exposure value, and thus it appears that the danger is low
when compared to cosmic rays during airplane travel and a chest X-ray dose.
In summary, if the key data (flux-integrated photons per unit values) were available, it
would be straightforward to accurately model the dose being deposited in the skin and adjacent tissues using available computer codes, which would resolve the potential
concerns over radiation damage."

Translation: The FDA screwed up the safety testing (gee, really?) by assuming the emitted radiation was distributed across the entire body rather than focused on the skin.

It brings up the question: When and how were these devices ever approved by the FDA anyway? Naked body scanners are clearly "medical devices" as they emit X-rays that penetrate body tissue. Did the FDA ever conduct long-term clinical trials demonstrating the safety of these devices? (Of course not.)

Did they ever test the safety of naked body scanners on pregnant women? What about senior citizens? How about people who have already undergone radiation treatments for conditions like thyroid cancer?

Ten big concerns voiced by the scientists

Here are ten additional concerns raised by these scientists in their letter: (the bolded titles are my subheads, the subsequent explanation test is quoted straight out the scientists' letter)

#1) Cancer in senior citizens - The large population of older travelers, greater than 65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging.

#2) Breast cancer - A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesis-provoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because these women, who have defects in DNA repair mechanisms, are particularly prone to cancer, X-ray mammograms are not performed on them. The dose to breast tissue beneath the skin represents a similar risk.

#3) White blood cells being irradiated - Blood (white blood cells) perfusing the skin is also at risk.

#4) HIV and cancer patients - The population of immunocompromised individuals -- HIV and cancer patients (see above) is likely to be at risk for cancer induction by the high skin dose.

#5) Radiation risk to children - The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to have been fully evaluated.

#6) Pregnant women - The policy towards pregnant women needs to be defined once the theoretical risks to the fetus are determined.

#7 Sperm mutations - Because of the proximity of the testicles to skin, this tissue is at risk for sperm mutagenesis.

#8 Radiation effects on cornea and thymus - Have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined?

#9 Problems with the machine - There are a number of 'red flags' related to the hardware itself. Because this device can scan a human in a few seconds, the X-ray beam is very intense. Any glitch in power at any point in the hardware (or more importantly in software) that stops the device could cause an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin.

Translation: This machine does not emit a "flood light" of radiation like you might get from a dental X-ray machine. Rather, this machine emits a thin, narrow beam of radiation that is quickly "scanned" across your body, back and forth, in much the same way that an inkjet printer prints a page (but a lot faster). Because the angle of the X-ray beam is controlled by the scanner software, a glitch in the software could turn thenaked body scanner into a high-energy weapon if the beam gets "stuck" in one location for more than a fraction of a second.

#10 Higher radiation for the groin? - Given the recent incident (on December 25th, 2009), how do we know whether the manufacturer or TSA, seeking higher resolution, will scan the groin area more slowly leading to a much higher total dose?

None of these ten concerns are being answered by the TSA and its head John Pistole. The attitude from the TSA on these scanners, in fact, isdownright belligerent, treating Americans as terrorists and threatening to arrest and detain individuals who refuse to be scanned and groped.

The TSA, it seems, believes it can do no wrong. Such is the inevitable outcome of granting too much power to any government department, as it will always seek to expand its power to the point of tyranny over the People.

Dangerous errors are possible

In this letter, these scientists go on to explain why they continue to hold such concerns: (my emphasis added)

We would like to put our current concerns into perspective. As longstanding UCSF
scientists and physicians, we have witnessed critical errors in decisions that have seriously affected the health of thousands of people in the United States. These unfortunate errors were made because of the failure to recognize potential adverse outcomes of decisions made at the federal level.

Crises create a sense of urgency that frequently leads to hasty decisions where unintended consequences are not recognized. Examples include the failure of the CDC to recognize the risk of blood transfusions in the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, approval of drugs and devices by the FDA without sufficient review, and improper standards set by the EPA, to name a few.

Similarly, there has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.

We are unanimous in believing that the potential health consequences need to be rigorously studied before these scanners are adopted. Modifications that reduce radiation exposure need to be explored as soon as possible.

In summary we urge you to empower an impartial panel of experts to reevaluate the potential health issues we have raised before there are irrevocable long-term consequences to the health of our country. These negative effects may on balance far outweigh the potential benefit of increased detection of terrorists.

Translation: These scientists believe that the TSA's naked body scanners pose a risk of promoting cancer across the population and that a real, scientific evaluation by trained, independent scientists must be conducted before these scanners are put to further use.

Again, you can read this letter for yourself here:
http://www.NaturalNews.com/files/TS...

Big Government says: What cancer?

The TSA, of course, refuses to hold any serious discussion about the science behind its use of naked body scanners... primarily because there is no legitimate science backing the use of its naked body scanners.

This whole scam was orchestrated by Chertoff and his Washington buddies to scare the population into accepting X-ray scans at airports so that a few rich white guys could cash in on the sale of these machines to the federal government.

The whole thing is a massive con job that, as usual, benefits the bank accounts of a few well-connected power pushers while compromising both the freedoms and the health of the American people.

No legitimate safety testing has ever been conducted on these naked body scanners, and yet the FDA and TSA just allow them to be rolled out on the ASSUMPTION that they must somehow be perfectly safe. (The same is true with seasonal flu vaccines, by the way, which are never tested in randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.)

Isn't this how aspartame got legalized, come to think of it? Except in that case it was Rumsfeld, not Chertoff, calling the shots.

You can't have nutrition, but we'll feed you X-rays!

Think about what's happening here for a minute: The FDA is an agency that has gone out and threatened, raided and persecuted manufacturers of walnuts, cherries and green tea products who made scientifically validated health claims about the benefits of those products. And yet, when it comes to rolling out naked body scanners that pose a cancer risk to the population, the FDA requires no legitimate scientific testing whatsoever and simply rubber stamps the whole project, thereby subjecting virtually the entire population to radiation-emitting devices with an unknown level of health risk.

But then again, what do they care if a few thousand people get cancer anyway? More cancer just means more profits for the cancer industry which, not coincidentally, just happens to treat its patients with yet more radiation as some sort of "therapy" for cancer. (I know, this just gets more bizarre the further you go).

Big Pharma must love the fact that millions of Americans are now being subjected to yet another form of ionizing radiation, as that means more cancer patients to buy chemotherapy in the years ahead, too. Pile 'em in, Chief! We've got more cattle to brand!

The craziest part of all

But the really crazy part about this whole story is not that the scientists are concerned about the health risks of these naked body scanners. It's not that the TSA is, itself, a terrorist organization now generating more fear and terror than the international terrorists could ever hope to accomplish. It's not even the fact that the FDA allows these radiation machines to be widely used across the country despite the fact that they've never been honestly and scientifically tested for use on humans.

No, the real shocker in all this is the startling fact that people are lining up like cattle to go along with this. Your average American citizen, it seems, just can't wait to bow down to authority and subject their private body parts to a federal search in complete violation of their Constitutional rights.

The American education system, it seems, has successfully produced a race of wage slaves who utterly fail to ask intelligent questions or stand up for their own rights. I guess that's the result of all the revisionist history being taught in public schools these days, where children are taught that Christopher Columbus is a national hero and that the government always tells the truth.

By the way, this reminds me to mention one of the most eye-opening books you will ever read. It's called Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History by Judge Andrew Napolitano (http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Governme...)

If you're not one of the Sheeple, and you think for yourself, and you have come to the realization that practically everything you were taught about history in the public schools was a complete fabrication, then you will definitely enjoy this book. It's written by one of the most knowledgeable and intelligent Constitutional scholars you'll ever encounter, and its sections on the Fourth Amendment are especially relevant to what's happening today with the TSA.

In fact, come to think of it, Judge Napolitano recently appeared on the Alex Jones Show to talk about the freedom issues with the naked body scanners and obscene gropes. You can watch those videos at: http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-ale...

It's a very educational interview.

Naked body scanners pose a cancer risk

But getting back to the health issue in particular, it is clear to anyone who understands the laws of physics that the TSA's naked body scanners create an increased risk of cancer to the population.

That's why I had the sense to refuse to go through one of these when directed to do so at a California airport. I opted out and went through the "easy" pat down (the easy version, before they upgraded to their "enhanced" pat downs). (http://www.naturalnews.com/030100_n...)

As of right now, I refuse to fly until the TSA backs off its naked body scanner madness. Not only do I refuse to subject my biology to ionizing radiation that carries an unknown cancer risk, but I also strongly object to the U.S. government violating my Constitutional rights by viewing the shape of my naked body on their electronic viewing screens.

Who are the real terrorists? The TSA

Another thing that has become abundantly clear in all this is that the real terror threat is the TSA itself. "Terrorism" is defined as using fear to achieve a political purpose. I can't think of a better example of that than the TSA and its fear-mongering campaign engineered to justify its huge power-grabbing expansion of personnel and authority. This is a government agency that had fewer than 200 employees a few years ago but now directs over 60,000 agents (it's like a whole new army of domestic secret police).

Another obvious "a-ha" moment in all this comes when you realize that air travelers are far more afraid of the TSA than any terror threat. Your chances of being killed by a terrorist on an air flight in America are so low that you probably have a greater chance of being struck by lightning right smack in the center of your butt crack while doing a yoga pose in a thunderstorm. And yet, your chances of being molested by the TSA are orders of magnitude higher, and everyone who stands in line at a security checkpoint is thinking, in the back of their minds, "Oh God, I hope they don't single me out for an obscene pat down."

The fact that this thought appears in your head (and admit it, it does) should be a huge red flag that you now live in a police state. People who live in truly free societies do not fret over being molested by their own government security agents.

Think about it: The way you and I feel in a TSA security line in many way reflects a small part of the way a Jewish citizen must have felt in Germany, in the 1930's, when a Nazi party member knocked on their door and demanded to see their papers. You never know: Am I going to be arrested? Molested? Detained? Deported? Or even killed?

Remember: Terrorism hinges on the ability of those in power to leverage fear in order to achieve their political goals. And right now, that seems to be a word-for-word blueprint for what the TSA is doing to the American people.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson.

And Winston Churchill famously said:

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.