AMUK Healthy Living Blog

Today, the Chief Medical Officer for Wales warned for possible risks of young people using mobile phones and recommended that texting may be safer than speaking on the phones.
So far the research has shown inconsistent results, however, some countries have already started using the "precautionary principle" ie fully assess health risks before recommending general use of a substance (or appliance).

From the perspective of an environmental clinic, we know that:

1. Children are more vulnerable to suffer from exposure to electromagnetism and other environmental agents such as chemicals, than adults
2. The numbers of people affected with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) have seen a parallel rise, reflecting exposures to various types of radiation
3. Only susceptible individuals seem to be affected
4. Chronic exposure to this type of radiation leads to loss of calcium ions from cells in the parts of the human body which receive most of it (which in turn can predispose to all sorts of common modern day conditions including chonic fatigue, allergies, fibromyalgia, cancer and so on).

Much of the harmful radiation is generated by the aerial of the mobile phones, which is close the earphone. The industry has declined to alter the cellphone designs. A simple measure to reduce the risk is to use ordinary headphones or switch on to the loudspeaker mode, which decreases significantly the contact with microwave radiation. There are some other preventative measures worth considering along the same lines.

References of interest:

Microwaves Imitate Pesticides http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/667/

Potential Health Impacts of Wireless Facilities http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/692/

Mobile mast blamed for cancer cluster http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/693/

New EMF Dangers: Type 3 Diabetes and Heart Disease http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/682/

This App Might Cause You To Swear Off Cell Phones http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/672/

WiFi at NZ school http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/694/

Cellphone tower: there has to be a better way http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/666/

Motorcycle Cancer Risk ELF EMF Magnetic Field Safety Proclamation to Gov. Schwarzenegger http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/676/

Health Canada Dismisses Cell Phone Dangers http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/700/

The iPad, internet, climate change link in the spotlight http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/6273706/

The Chemical mechanisms leading to EMF Sensitivity http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/670/

The World's Largest-ever Human Experiment http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/679/

Professor killed in home invasion http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/680/

Cell tower near grade school riles Gilbert parents http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/687/

Chorley phone mast turned down http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/689/

Mobile mast blocked http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/696/

Hands-free phones 'as risky as drink-driving' http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/stories/688/

Next-up News Nr 1316 http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/6274126/

Next-up News Nr 1317 http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/6274823/

Next-up News Nr 1318 http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/6277568/

Next-up News Nr 1320 http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/6280157/

News from Mast Sanity (*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research_related_to_low-carbohydrate_diets

Whilst allergy to milk is quite uncommon (it is estimated as 2-6% of all babies in the UK), intolerance to cow's milk or "non-allergic hypersensitivity" is far more common. The trouble is that, only intolerance to gluten and lactose (the latter is actually a deficiency of the enzyme beta-lactamase) can nowadays be documented with reliable laboratory tests. Even so, one has to have been eating foods containing these substances around the time of the test, otherwise the result can be (falsely) negative, because the memory of immune reactivity can be "erased" after omitting a food for 6 weeks or more.

Beware that intolerance to milk is reactivity to its proteins, casein, lactalbumin or whey and not to its sugar (lactose). Other animal milks, such as goat's, may be in the beginning less reactive but ultimately foster intolerance, if used often enough.

In the absence of accurate tests, the sceptics understandably remain unconvinced about the incidence of intolerance to milk (or any other foods) and the topic is dismissed as "unfounded". The result of this is that a long array of symptoms and conditions which could actually have simple, low cost solutions in the day to day practice, often become chronic, highly complex problems, which ultimately require the use of acute or long term medications. The spin off effect of this is far more serious for the individual, as I will illustrate on another occasion.

In this background, the question of "what milk is best?" is a true case in point. Just take a look at this link below, on the health implications of using breast milk to feed babies (but note that the references are from studies comparing breastfed with non-breastfed human beings and therefore they can not conclude that cows' milk is bad for babies, however the implication is clear!).

My own (anecdotal) experience as a clinician is that, while in general practice, shortly after I started advising expectant mums to avoid feeding their baby with milk formulas for the first two years of life, my referral rates to ENT and paediatric departments fell to unprecedented levels in the milk avoidance group, but remained unchanged amongst the group who ignored the advice. Similar differences were noticed in surgery appointments for upper respiratory infections and children's problems and in the use of antibiotics.

In the last 2-3 years, some paediatric colleagues have highlighted the alarming rate of growth amongst formula fed babies, compared to breast fed ones (much slower) and have used this as a predictive factor of obesity in adult life! It is even possible to demonstrate a link between some breastfed babies' symptoms and their mothers' intake of specific foods. Remove a "trigger" food from mum's diet and, surprise, surprise, the baby clears the symptom.

During pregnancy & breastfeeding: Mothers can eat peanuts (or foods containing them) irrespective of a family history of allergies.

Introducing peanuts into a child's diet: All mothers should consider breastfeeding for the first 6 months; if they wish to introduce solid foods during this time, they should avoid peanuts and other potentially "allergenic" foods (other nuts, seeds, milk, eggs, wheat, fish and shellfish) and, when they do, these should be introduce as one food at a time so they can spot any allergic reaction.

General: Where a child has already another kind of allergy (such as diagnosed eczema or an allergy to foods other than peanut) or there is a history of allergy in the child's immediate family, the parents should talk to their GP, health visitor or allergy specialist, because these children are at higher risk of developing peanut allergy.

Dr Econs' comment: It is good to see that official guidelines once more encourage breastfeeding for 6 months. However, I some times see totally breastfed babies, whose immune system somehow detects other foods in their mother's milk and as a result they seem to be indirectly affected (baby colic, vomiting, sleep disturbance, various types of eczema and catarrh are common problems); exclusion of certain common foods from the mother's diet, is known to bring about a cessation of symptoms in the baby and re-introduction is followed by the return of symptoms. Most of the foods mentioned in these guidelines happen to be common triggers of "non-allergic food hypersensitivity" (the recently adopted term for food intolerance) in children, which is far more common than classic allergy. My overriding impression is that increased avoidance of an allergen during pregnancy and breastfeeding is associated with a reduced risk of an allergy affecting the infant. This is an issue which will be scrutinised further by some new clinical studies, planned for the next couple of years.

PS: The issue of reducing the risk of peanut allergy reminds me to mention the incalculable benefits associated with the avoidance of cows milk products during the critical first 6-12 months of life and possibly beyond this stage (see separate blog)

Welcome to Allergy Medical UK, our new home on the internet. We've tried to make things easier to read, easier to learn from, and ultimately hopefully lead to some resolutions for problems which blight the lives of so many of us, and which unfortunately, modern medicine doesn't always address.

Like so many of you, we're also embracing the new ways of communicating online, we've got our own twitter account and will be posting news and condition information now and again, so do follow us.

Keep visiting us... we'll be making lots of changes in the coming weeks and months, increasing the amount of condition information available, offering downloads, a podcast and lots and lots of photographs.

If you think we can improve on any areas in particular, let us know and we'll see what we can do.

Many thanks and enjoy!

Peter