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

There are a number of reasons why you shouldn't blindly trust in either the government or big corporations when it comes to whether something is safe or not.  For one thing, these people may define "safe" more liberally than you--in other words, they may be willing to inflict a higher risk on you than you would be willing to inflict on yourself if you were in their shoes. 

Secondly, big companies often have a financial interest invested in the product or service at hand; government officials, perhaps being compensated for turning their heads (i.e., bribed into turning off their consciences, assuming they have one), may not be willing to properly evaluate and publicly recognize actual risks involved in using a particular product.

Although risk (whether high or low) may be subject to opinion and to possibly conflicting study findings, the fact remains that how much danger some things pose are often down-played, sometimes with tragic consequences.  Establishing correlation between potentially harmful things and victims thereof is an uphill battle at best but, make no mistake, many of the things that you may use every day carry risks much higher than you've been told, as these next 10 examples illustrate:

(see the 1st 10 items on this list here)

11.  Most canned foods.  Canned foods are only good for one thing:  to store away for long-term, serious emergencies.  Because they have such a long storage life (in general), canned foods can be a practical source of food when electricity is out for a long time, no means exist to cook anything, food may not be purchased from markets due to some calamity, or you are forced to rely on food supplies while hiding somewhere (possibly because of a nuclear explosion or some great natural conflagration). 

One of the harmful chemicals in canned food is Bisphenol-A (BPA), which is used as a liner to preserve food. Speaking of preservatives, there is also the issue of the type of preservatives used in many canned foods, some of which are suspected carcinogens and health disruptors.  Packaged/processed foods are generally not good for everyday consumption anyway--as such, use canned foods only for emergencies or, if you must, only sporadically.

12.  Vegetable oils.  Unfortunately, while most of these may have originally indeed been derived from some earth-grown seeds, the sad reality is that, after heavy chemical processing, there is very little "natural" about most of these oils; none of them, furthermore, come from "vegetables." 

In fact, most of them contain disease-promoting synthetic fats and varied chemical contaminants almost impossible to keep out of industrially-produced food products.  Producing them, for example, requires the use of toxic solvents (like hexane) which affect the final product in ways that even cooking oil producers may not be aware of. 

One thing we know is that these oils are high in Omega-6, which can be very unhealthy when consumed in high quantity, especially when they off-set the delicate balance of Omega-3 and Omega-6 within our bodies.  Under such conditions, excessive consumption Omega-6 has been tied to the unhealthy type of inflammation (as opposed to inflammation the body initiates to fight off infection, which can be beneficial) that can lead to disease, including cancer. 

In fact, when these oils are heated they can degrade into toxic oxidation products, which may also contribute to the inflammatory damage imposed on otherwise healthy cells in the human body.

Also, these synthetically produced/processed fats are often difficult to digest (because your body's enzymes may not recognize them or the contaminants stringing along), potentially leading to different kinds of digestive issues which, in turn, may translate into or lead to systemic medical problems, including autoimmune disorders.   

As if these deficiencies were not enough to discourage their use, these oils are also generally being made from GMOs (mostly corn and soybeans), which carry their own significant dangers, mostly because they haven't been properly tested (using long-term safety studies involving 3 years or more and using human being, not just animals). For your part, stick with naturally-produced (not produced with intense heat or nasty solvents), "organic" oils, including grapeseed, olive, sunflower, etc. 

And, by the way, don't worry so much about saturated fats as you should about synthetic, industrially-processed fats.

13.  Most margarines & butter substitutes.  These products are being brought to you by the same people bringing you these so-called "vegetable oils."  This is why they are so cheap or, should we say, cheaper than truly natural and organic alternatives, such as plain, old fashioned "butter." 

Yes, we've been told that the high saturated fat in butter would kill us but, incredibly, we have all participated in a major impromptu study which has proven this "theory" to be totally false.  Most Americans gave up butter, only to replace it with the now-much-cheaper, industrially-over-processed (to the point of destroying any vestiges of "nutrition") margarines and butter substitutes we all thought were much healthier. 

Well, heart disease has not only gotten worse after we gave up butter but has, in fact, become the number 1 killer--not even cancer, which is being inflicted on 1 out of 3 people right now, kills more people. 

Folks, the synthetic fats (in the form of hydrogenated oils, trans fats, etc.), toxic contaminants (i.e., glyphosate)and mostly-untested (using long-term safety studies involving 3 or more years and using human beings) chemicals in these butter-substituting products are clogging up our arteries and giving us heart disease--not to mention autoimmune disorders and, possibly, cancer!--yet, we continue to buy them as if they were free.  There is a reason why these products are much cheaper than butter--because they are industrially created using waste by- products of government subsidized programs seeds, including corn, soybean, rapeseed, sunflower, etc.  

Here's what you need to do:  go back to butter, preferably the "organic" kind made from grass-fed cows (not those poor creatures being tortured in factory farms and fed disease-inducing GMOs). 

14.  Carbonated drinks.  Carbonated drinks offer no benefit whatsoever, in spite of being so popular. They tickle your taste buds and may even get you hooked on them (until you become too sick to drink anymore) but, make no mistake, carbonated drinks are not fit for human consumption.  Perhaps one of the most acidic things you can pour into your body, soda pop will destroy the enamel on your teeth, give you kidney stones, gradually make your bones much weaker (as your body frantically tries to use the calcium in your bones to counteract the high acidity) and may even give you cancer. 

Why do you insist on imbibing something perfectly suited to clean car engines & for several industrial applications (e.g., putting out a fire!), containing so many known toxins, and proven to inflict such a long list of serious medical problems (some of which are deadly)?

15.  Several food preservatives; especially nitrites in packaged meats.  Food preservatives do a wonderful job of killing (or preventing the growth of) the many germs that would otherwise grow on processed/packaged foods.  That's the good news.  The bad news is that these harsh chemicals (especially those created in labs) may also be killing us in the long run, either by slowly poisoning us or by inflicting "long-term-toxicity"-prone, chronic diseases (such as cancer and autoimmune disorders). 

The truth is that some of these preservatives shouldn't be in our foods (preferably replaced by safer alternatives); this is especially true about nitrates/nitrites (found in things like cold cuts, hot dogs, processed bacon, etc.), which have been identified as potential carcinogens by WHO and other health organizations & experts.  This is yet another reason for greatly limiting (if not completely eliminating) consumption of packaged/processed foods.

16.  Most food additives:  flavors, modifiers, enhancers, colors, emulsifiers, dyes, etc.; these are often mislabeled as "natural." To be blunt, many of these substances should never have been approved for use in food products.  Few (if any), for starters, were ever subjected to long-term food safety studies involving humans. In fact, what few studies they were subjected to usually (if not exclusively) involved animals; they were also too short, were done by people too conflicted to be impartial, and were probably done a long time ago. 

Your best option is to avoid as many of these mostly-untested, harsh (potentially toxic and/or carcinogenic) chemicals as possible:

• Tartrazine
• Quinoline Yellow
• Azorubine/Carmoisine
• Amaranth (red food colouring)
• Caramel (food colour)
• Titanium Dioxide
• Benzoic Acid
•  TBHQ
• BHA & BHT
• Hexamine                                                                                                                              

You will find that, in most cases, these chemicals were added to food because they extended shelf life, improved texture or taste, made them more appealing to the senses, helped preserve them, or improved appearance; few, if any, were added because of undeniable nutritional value, greatly improved quality, proven safety for human consumption, or popular demand by the public.

In other words, they have been put there for  the sake of (the companies', not yours) convenience, profitability and superficial usefulness.

17.  So-called "millimeter wave" airport security screening machines. These machines have been replacing the X-ray ionic-radiation-imparting airport security screening machines that were shoved down the public's throat (without either their input or permission--not to mention concern for their long-term welfare) after 9/11.  TSA, with neither the qualifications nor the collaboration of non-conflicted, independent health experts (who have been denied access to the machines so they can conduct their own tests), is claiming that these machines are a safer alternative to the X-ray machines. 

Well, here's the truth:  the technology being implemented has never been used on human beings in this manner or for the same motives; what's worse, the use of this technology has not been subjected to long-term safety studies to see what effect this technology will have on its victims--or, to be more politically correct, should we say: it's "airport security screening participants"--in the long run.  In fact, the use of millimeter wave machines is nothing short of a great health-effect experiment using human beings as impromptu guinea pigs. 

This would serve a useful purpose if the TSA were keeping data on the health effects of this untested (in terms of producing full-body imaging of living human beings for security screening purposes) technology on the public but they're not--then again, this would be a public health role the TSA simply isn't qualified to conduct.  For your part, don't submit to essentially being microwaved or radiowaved (these machines could in theory either by design or malfunction easily inflict one or the other type of electromagnetic radiation on you) so that the government can determine if you are a weapon-carrying "terrorist." 

There are, though, much safer security measures and technology (including the use of biometrics, background checks, etc.--these are good enough to gain White House and Pentagon access but not good enough to board a plane?) that essentially make these machines unnecessary--which begs the question:  Why is the government really implementing these potentially dangerous, disease-inflicting "death machines?"

18.  Tap water in most communities, especially urban settings.  The main toxic thing you have to worry about in most municipal drinking water systems is fluoridation; in spite of what the authorities (who have too cozy a relationship with the highly-contaminated, mining/manufacturing fluoride industry to be objective and public health-minded) may tell you, fluoride is a dangerous poison that, according to experts, doesn't belong in drinking water--not even in the so-called "limited amounts" they claim are being used. 

This poison, in fact, was used by the Nazis to make their prisoners in concentration camps more docile, used to be a rat poison in the early 1900s (and prior to that), is considered a neurotoxin by some experts, and may even reduce IQ levels, as well as damage cognitive function.

But, even if you choose to believe the fluoride "pushers" and "pimps," there are dozens of other dangerous chemicals in most of our water sources which you definitely need to be wary of and avoid, if possible. 

If the fluoride and chlorine that are being dumped in the water were as "harmless" as the government is claiming (without the hard scientific evidence they should have), there is the issue of the toxic chemical reactions that are occurring after these supposedly "safe" toxins interact with the other chemicals accidentally seeping (such as through ground water contamination and rain-driven run-off) into our drinking water.

Some of the nasty chemicals involved in these impromptu "interactions" include chloramine, trihalomethanes, volatile organic compounds, haloacetic acids, nitrosamines, atrazines, glyphosate, heavy metals, etc.  These chemicals are being found in our drinking water systems in higher and higher amounts each year.  For that reason, invest in a good, charcoal-based water filtration system that will filter not only your drinking water but your bathing water as well. 

Like it or not, the quality of most (if not all) of our drinking water is in serious peril; since we need it as much (if not more) than food, make sure that the water you are inhaling and drinking is not making you sick.

19.  Salon sun-tanning machines.  Some people are so obsessed with getting a tan, that they are willing to take what is, at best, a dangerous short-cut to getting one.  The UV radiation that is used by these tanning machines can be carcinogenic.   

Since skin cancer affects a rather large number of people throughout the world, people who expose themselves to this technology are, simply put, playing Russian roulette with their  health . . . maybe they will get cancer, maybe they won't! 

Is getting a quick tan worth such a significant risk? 

By the way, so-called "chemical or spray-on" (such as those that use Dihydroxyacetone or DHA) tans are also capable of damaging the skin and, possibly, inflicting skin cancer. 

20.  Cell phones.  The rates for brain tumors have been getting worse and worse each year; maybe by coincidence, so has the use of cell phones all over the world.  When you consider that cell phone technology utilizes concentrated beams of both radio waves and microwaves, it's rather ludicrous for anyone to suggest that there couldn't possibly be a connection, considering the results of some of the studies and experiments (even if some of them have merely provided anecdotal evidence) that have been conducted thus far.

While the effects of radio waves may not indicate as much of a potential health problem, there is reason to fear the effects of microwaves on living cells. 

As with everything else on this list, not enough safety studies (especially in reference to long-term potential mutagenicity and carcinogenicity) have been conducted on cell phones and the long-term health effects of concentrated radio waves and microwaves on living cells; many (if not most) of the studies that have been conducted, it must be noted, were paid for and conducted by people with a vested financial interest in the cell phone industry--in other words, serious conflicts of interest have been involved. 

Not surprisingly, most (if not all) of those studies have exonerated cell phones.

Because of all those conflicted studies, we can't with complete certainty say that cell phones are harmful, but neither can we say that they are perfectly safe.  In fact, there is ever-growing anecdotal evidence on the potential dangers of cell phones, especially in regards to brain tumors.  Also, studies conducted by ostensibly independent researchers (i.e., having no financial interests or unethical ties to the cell phone industry) have found scientific evidence of a connection--albeit more such studies by non-conflicted researchers are badly needed.

For your part, until the issue can be settled using adequate long-term safety studies by researchers not too-financially-conflicted to be impartial and objective, strive to not keep cell phones too close to your body, especially the head.  Use speakers and headphones and, by all means, don't use Bluetooth phones. 

Conclusion

"Okay, so some of these things carry some risk--so what?" you might say.  Well, if you were more openly (if at all) told about these risks, then there would be no need for this article.  The problem is, however, that you as a consumer are often given glowing reports about things that, at best, should be presented (if they were being honest) as "highly risky." 

In other words, you're being lied to more often than you realize.

In some cases, they aren't just downplaying the risks but, rather, blatantly denying that any significant ones exist.  How many times, though, have you seen a drug or a product taken off the shelves (after lawsuits and legal action was used to drive home the point that the item in question was more dangerous than people were told) because of an excessive number of people got hurt or died? It happens too often. 

Ideally, public safety should be the over-riding priority but, if you believe that such a thing applies today, then you are incredibly naive.

What drives decision-making at the highest levels is money.  If they can put out a product that is likely to make high profits, in spite of not having been properly tested for safety and though some studies may have shown that dangerous complications were possible, they will do so without any hesitation. 

Because that is the reality we live in, you have to become your own judge & jury regarding what is and isn't "safe." To put it in medical terms, your life may depend on it!

Copyright, 2016.  Fred Fletcher.  All rights reserved.

References

(see embedded links)