Do you trust your doctor?

A while back I started writing about my history and left the story unfinished.  Believe me it will take a while but I feel the need to write it all down and let it go.  So last thing I wrote was that at the age of 15 I had a tumor removed from my neck.  The tumor turned out to be thyroid cancer.  The doctor essentially said that they would do radiation but then I was good to go.  I would have no more chance of developing cancer later in life than anyone else.  Now that sounds like good news huh.  Well sort of, I still had cancer after all.  I had the radiation treatment, which was interesting.  Imagine sitting in a bed, at 15 years of age, in a hospital gown because of radiation contamination, and a guy walks in wearing a suit to safe guard him from the radiation.  He whips out a metal straw and a metal container along with a radiation monitoring device.  Tells me to drink.  Sounds appetizing huh.  Then he uses the radiation monitor while slowly moving out of the room.  Says the radioactivity is such that no one can enter but he'll come back tomorrow and test again.  Which he did for a few days straight placing a peice of tape on the floor and slowly moving it toward the bed until I was able to be released.  Then I went about my life, on medication for thyroid hormone replacement, and really never thought about it again.

Flash forward 15 years.  Yup 15 years of bliss 'til the other shoe dropped.  I just had my first miscarriage.  The doctor noted my tsh (thyroid stimulating hormone level) was in the hyperthyroid range.  He asked when I had last seen an endocrinologist.  I replied with a, "never".  Doc gave me the raised eyebrow look.  You see the doctor I saw when I was 15 was a surgeon.  No one ever referred me to an endocrinologist.  So off I went.  The endo ordered some bloodwork and lowered my meds.  My next appointment, around 2 weeks after my miscarriage, he informs me I STILL HAVE CANCER.  Hello!  Let's go back to the "you have no more chance than anyone else".  What happened to THAT statement.  What REALLY irks me is I went back and got a copy of my medical records and everything in it suggested my cancer was never erradicated in the first place.  This is when I stopped trusting doctors and started doing ALOT of research.

Fired up!

I try not to be preachy or impose my opinions on others.  Try being the key word here.  But the new full-body scanners have me all fired up, and worried to say the least.  If you are not aware of what these are or why I am so opposed to them read the article I posted below.  I got this particular article from Dr. Mercola.  I posted the whole thing because you have to register with the site to read the articles and I wasn't sure if the 2 people who read my blog would register.  Basically the scanners display an image of a naked body, detailed ya'll.  Which is why they are nicknamed the "naked body scanners".  Here is an example:

Why don't I just undress in the airport?  And that's not all.  Read the article for details on health effects of these things.  Of course you always have the option for the upgraded pat down.  Then instead of someone seeing your naked body they just get to cop a feel.  Anyone else out there bothered by this?

The real kicker is they don't even detect the type of explosives they were developed to protect us against! 

I was worried when we went to NOLA because the scanners are in the NOLA airports and I'm sure you all have heard of the arrests being made for those who say NO!  But when we went through security they weren't being used.  The guard actually made a joke about it when my necklace set off the metal detector.  I'm wondering if the recent publicity has slowed their use until the courts take a look at it.  I did an internet search but couldn't find any info.  If you have any up to date news please pass it on.  Now GO READ THE ARTICLE!  I promise it will alter your opinion and make you think twice about the morality, safety, and justification for it's use.

The Best Bomb Detectors for Airports - Why Aren't We Using Them?

Posted By Dr. Mercola | January 20 2011 | 7,872 views

By Dr. Mercola

As you probably know, 486 full-body (aka "naked") scanners are now being used at 78 airports across the United States. Along with the US, Canada, Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea have also started using the scanners.
According to EPIC.org, the scanners have been wholly rejected in Dubai due to ethical concerns and religious objections, and there are no plans to roll them out in Central or South America either.
A small number of airports in Finland, the UK, the Netherlands, France and Italy are currently evaluating the technology. The UK, however, has banned the use of full-body scanners on children under the age of 18.
Dubbed "naked" scanners because they give a graphic image of your body, including genitalia and other personal effects like sanitary napkins, the devices have raised all sorts of health- and privacy concerns.
I covered a number of them in this previous article, and in this follow-up I'll review a few more.

Naked Scanners May Promote DNA Damage and Skin Cancer

Adding his voice to the growing list of scientists and doctors speaking out about their concerns about these scanners, Dr. Russell Blaylock recently published his own viewpoints on this issue.

"Radiation increases cancer risk by damaging the DNA and various components within the cells," Blaylock writes. "Much of the damage is caused by high concentrations of free radicals generated by the radiation.
Most scientists think that the most damaging radiation types are those that have high penetration, such as gamma-rays, but in fact, some of the most damaging radiation barely penetrates the skin.
One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin — such as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.
This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being "1,000-times less than a chest X-ray" and "far less than what passengers are exposed to in-flight" are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue exposed."

In my previous article on this subject, I too mentioned that your health risk might not be as great as feared, for the very reason that the radiation from the scanner is likely less than the radiation dose that you'd be exposed to during the flight itself.
The caveat, of course, was that this would only be the case if we were indeed given accurate and truthful information about the radiation from these scanners. Well, there may still be too many unanswered questions to determine exactly what, or how high, the risk is…
In a joint memorandum to Dr. John Holdren, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, dated April 6, 2010, a group of physicians expressed their concerns about the lack of safety data and the potential health risks of these full-body scanners, and asked for an urgent independent review of ALL the available and relevant data.
Co-signers of this letter included:

• Dr. John Sedat, PhD, Professor Emeritus in Biochemistry and Biophysics at UCSF with expertise in imaging
• Dr. Marc Shuman, M.D, an international cancer expert and UCSF Professor
• Dr. David Agard, PhD, UCSF Professor, x-ray crystallographer and imaging expert
• Dr. Robert Stroud, PhD, UCSF Professor, x-ray crystallographer and imaging expert

In their letter they cite several "Red Flags."

"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). 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."

Currently, the general consensus (with regards to what the potential danger might be) among experts in the field appears to be the potential for cellular damage to your skin, or to organs close to the surface of your skin.
The memorandum also specifies certain very-high-risk groups, such as:

• Babies and small children
• Pregnant women
• The elderly
• Immuno-suppressed individuals

Other Health Problems May Aggravate Risks

Blaylock also points out that:

"As we grow older, our DNA accumulates a considerable amount of unrepaired damage, and under such circumstances even low doses of radiation can trigger the development of skin cancers, including the deadly melanoma. I would also be concerned about exposing the eyes, since this could increase one's risk of developing cataracts.
About 5 percent of the population has undiagnosed abnormal DNA repair mechanism. When exposed to radiation, this can put them at a cancer risk hundreds of times greater than normal people.
It also has been determined that when skin is next to certain metals, such as gold, the radiation dose is magnified 100-fold higher. What if you have a mole next to your gold jewelry? Will the radiation convert it to a melanoma? Deficiencies in certain vitamins can also dramatically increase your sensitivity to radiation carcinogenesis, as can certain prescription medications."
These are important questions to which there are no definitive answers at present.

Differing Technologies Make Matters Even More Complex…

Complicating matters even further is the fact that not all full-body scanners employ the same type of radiation technology.
According to a recent article by USA Today, nearly half of the full-body scanners deployed so far use an electromagnetic wave technology called "millimeter wave," as opposed to the ionizing radiation known as "backscatter x-ray." At the time of this writing, it appears as though the majority of health concerns are related to the backscatter technology.
Still, common sense would dictate that we need to proceed with caution and not expose millions of travelers of all ages, and with any number of medical conditions, to unknown risks.
As Blaylock says:

"As for the assurances we have been given by such organization as the American College of Radiology, we must keep in mind that they assured us that the CT scans were safe and that the radiation was equal to one chest X-ray.
Forty years later we learn that the dose is extremely high; it is thought to have caused cancer in a significant number of people, and the dose is actually equal to 1,000 chest X-rays."

Yes, these errors of the past should indeed serve as cautionary tales when making safety claims for brand new technologies. How many times will a belated "oops!" suffice before we demand the return of the precautionary principle?
The fact of the matter is:

1. We still have a lot to learn about the health impact of different technologies
2. Any time you use technology,  malfunctions can occur, and
3. X-ray machines are only as accurate as the people maintaining them

Another example that addresses all three of these factors comes from USA Today. It appears as though baggage x-ray machines—just like CT scans—can emit far more radiation than they're "supposed to."
The USA Today explains:

 "When investigators with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) workplace safety team visited a dozen airports in 2003 and 2004, what they found was disturbing — at least to federal airport workers.
Although most radiation levels around baggage X-ray machines were low, six of 281 machines used to screen checked luggage violated federal radiation standards, some emitting two or three times the allowed limit, the CDC found.
… Because TSA workers at airports in Boston and San Juan were troubled by what they saw as possible cancer clusters among colleagues, the TSA this year requested health hazard evaluations of their work areas to address radiation concerns, CDC records show.
The CDC found nothing unusual about the number of cancer cases and determined they were likely unrelated to airport X-ray machines, the reports say."

So far, the TSA has refused to release inspection reports for the baggage x-ray machines and the full-body scanners, stating simply that "they all passed inspection." This despite the fact that the CDC's investigation revealed the agency had clearly failed to identify and correct a number of faulty machines.
Still, we're supposed to trust that the TSA will ensure the proper maintenance and function of all full-body scanners as well…

"Peter Rez, a physics professor at Arizona State University, worries about the possibility of higher doses or even radiation burns if a machine malfunctions and the scanning beam stops on one part of the body," the USA Today reports.
"Rez, who has reviewed a patent application for the backscatter system, notes that the scanner has a fail-safe system that is supposed to shut down the X-ray beam if there's a problem."But we all learned this summer that fail-safe systems do fail," Rez said, referring to the mechanical failures that resulted in the massive Gulf oil spill."

Full-Body Scanners NOT Designed to Detect Powdered Explosives?

Can that be right?
I've not been able to independently verify this, but according to Epic.org, research shows these scanners cannot detect the type of powdered explosives used by the so-called "underwear bomber," whose bizarre stunt is what prompted the widespread use of these scanners in the first place. If that's correct, then that raises even further questions.
Why insist on an invasive peep show if the machine cannot pick up the very thing they're looking for? Namely explosives!  

What's Next?

Another question that remains to be answered is whether or not we'll end up getting radiated in places other than the airport.
According to an article posted on TheHill.com, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, has "introduced legislation that would authorize testing of body scanners at some federal buildings."
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has also stated that they're thinking about ways to strengthen security for other popular modes of transportation, such as buses, trains and boats. She did not mention the use of body scanners, but if scanners are implemented in federal buildings, then what's to stop them from being implemented elsewhere?
The answer is probably "nothing," which makes fighting back against their use in airports all the more important.

Who Stands to Gain Financially from Full-Body Scanners?

As in so many other instances, our legal and civil rights system is being willfully manipulated and trampled for the sake of private and corporate profits.
In this case, the former homeland security chief and co-author of the PATRIOT act, Michael Chertoff, is now the primary promoter of full-body scanners, and is a paid consultant for the companies that sell them!
As Dr. Orient said in her AAPS article:

"… if your doctor had an ownership interest in the scanner, he might go to federal prison for referring you for a scan. These anti-kickback laws, however, do not apply to the influential government cronies who stand to make a fortune from the scanners."

It's just the latest in a very long line of blatant conflicts of interest and corporate agendas that have, and continue to, erode our personal freedoms in the name of "security."

Only the strongest survive

Now that I know we are leaving Colombia I started thinking about all the things I love and hate about this city/country.  I was gonna do a "that's good" and "that's bad" list but when I sat down to write I realized the traffic and driving in Bogota were a post in and of themselves!  I was raised in Washington DC, lived in Boston and San Diego, dealt with LA traffic but Bogota, well let's just say Bogota takes the cake when it comes to insane traffic and drivers.  Mostly insane drivers which is the root cause of the insane traffic, IMO.

Let's just start with the fact that there are no lines on the road.  I mean why bother, no one cares about lanes.  I wonder if they even have a word for "lane" in Bogota.  If you are driving down a 2 lane road do not be surprised if suddenly 4, or more like 3 1/2, lanes suddenly appear before your eyes.  Cars are turned at funny angles all playing chicken with each other for one more car length ahead of the rest.

Stop lights... purely advisory.  No need to stop.  Especially at night.  Then again if you have a green light at night you may want to slow down and roll through after carefully checking in both directions that someone else is not about to plow through!  My friend actually had a cop stop her and ask her why she stoppped at the red light.  He told her she was going to cause an accident.  Um yeah.

Speaking of lights.  The lights go from red to yellow to green to red to yellow.  So at a red light, when it turns yellow BEFORE the green people start honking and putting the pedal to the metal.  Crossing the road is a bit like frogger!

Manhole covers are made of concrete.  I've seen more than one tire go in and never come out.

One way road... well I'm only going one way right.  This one actually comes in handy when you're lost, see your destination, but it's the wrong way down a one way road.  When in Rome...

Now pretend you are in a line of cars at a stop light or a stop sign and it's just taking tooo long to get through the intersection.  Well just pull into on-coming traffic.  Okay not if the cars are actually coming at you but if the lane is clear - USE IT!  I was sitting in a line of cars at a stop sign the other day.  People became impatient and just pulled into the other lane and started trying to make right hand turns from the left lane that was designated for traffic flow in the opposite direction.  Then said traffic wanted to use the lane but it was blocked.  Actually, that worked out ok because it left room for a hoard of people to pull out while said car was waiting for a clear lane to turn into.  I think I need a dry erase board to help visualize that move!

Basically there is no law.  Supposedly laws DO exist but no one cares.  Signs say No Parking, park anyway.  Red light, shmed light.  Need to make a right hand turn but your in the left lane... go for it!  It's anarchy people.  Only the strongest survive!

Permanent is a relative term

Excuse the hiatus but the family is on vacatiion in New Orleans!!!  Which would be great, well still it IS great but... the weather is FREEEZING!  I don't do cold.  In Bogota right now it's about 70 degrees.  Wanna know what it's been here in NOLA?  Around 35, THIRTY-FIVE folks.  That's about 25 degrees colder than average this time of year.  Did I mention I don't do cold.  Anything under 50 makes me cranky.  All is not lost however.   We have been to all the indoor sights including consuming insect cuisine at the insectarium, and visiting friends.  Perhaps I'll post a few pics on Sunday when we return to the nice warm weather of Bogota.  Until then I have 1 more day to eat my weight in beniegts (how DO you spell that?  anyone?) as well as etouffee, gumbo and any other seafood I can get my hands on!

As for the reason for this trip.  We were supposed to PCS here this summer.  For you non-military folks that stands for Permanent Change of Station.  Permanent being a relative term.  For us permanent is a max of 3 years.  Since marrying the Dip we have only done a 3 year tour 1 time so permanent really is an oxymoron.  Anyway... we were supposed to move to NOLA in the summer, then The Dip was gonna retire in around 2 years.  And then the man had to go get himself promoted!!!  Which is good, I guess.  Heck more money is always good but that cash comes with a price.  No New Orleans, more moves, more time in the military.  On the upside... LOT'S more retirement money and we are now headed to Paraguay.  Yeah it's not New Orleans but Buenos Aires is close by, Iguacu Falls also, Padagonia anyone?  I sense many more adventures coming our way!  So our trip to NOLA was to get our kids into a school here but now it's just a cold vacation in a really cool city.  Congrats babe, you screwed up the life plan but the title of the blog is LIFE IS A DARING ADVENTURE OR NOTHING AT ALL.  Adventure here we come!

The Princess and the water balloon

Apartment living is not fun, IMO.  Sure it's nice to have a gym, mini-golf (weird I know but the kids like it), and serious security.  Plus the elevator opens to MY apartment.  There is no one else on my floor.  It is rather princess-like with the marble EVERYWHERE and the SIX, that's right folks SIX FULL BATHS in my four bedroom apartment (not including the maids quarters).  The downside though is that Colombians like to party and it can be REALLY loud.  Also a neighbor in the building behind me occasionally leaves her dog on a balcony and he barks his freaking head off ALL.NIGHT.LONG!  The other night The Diplomat got fed up and started making water balloons.  I'm guessing to pelt the dog with but I'm not really sure of his intent. However, the second he got all those balloons ready to go, the dog stopped barking.  The balloons have been sitting in a plastic bag hanging off the bathroom door ever since.

Flash forward to this evening.  Leo, my 6 year old boy, is in the tub.  I spy the bag, pick it up, whirl around, chuck a water balloon and BAM hit him smack in the chest!  I must say it was a nice shot.  But the darn thing didn't break!!!  Guess The Dip failed water balloon inflation 101.  Anyway, Leo was SO suprised it took him a second.  First he said, "that hurt" then he spied the water balloon floating in the tub and got a huge grin.  I knew now was the time to get out of dodge.  I shoved Miss Texas, my 5 yr old daughter, in the room and ran.  By the time I come back they are chucking the unbreakable balloon back and forth.  I grabbed it and threw it hard and it smashed on the wall behind the tub showering Leo with water.  In the meantime Miss Texas grabs the bag and proceeds to get more.  I have to say it was the most improptu fun!  The Dip just wanted to know who was gonna clean it up.  Um yeah... that's what maids are for.  Guess I am turning into a princess after-all.