Who would want this baby to die?
Who cares about the babies that die? Our government certainly doesn’t! It is outrageous and tragic that our government and many of our doctors don’t care. Certainly we will never see medical officials caring about the deaths of infants caused by vaccines on a regular basis. The government’s identity has grown to such beastly proportions these days that everyone who is not “them” is an enemy, even the babies.
What do medical officials really care when a baby dies from vaccine complications? What do FDA officials do to block out the guilt and pain of knowing that they caused a lifetime of suffering for a young child when they allow dental mercury amalgam (toxic waste dumps) to be put right in their mouths? Do they care about peoples’ iodine deficiencies that leave them more vulnerable to the radioactive iodine from Fukushima? Do they care about the wreck and ruin in millions of peoples’ lives suffering from the toxicity of fluoride deliberately put in the public’s drinking water supplies?
And do you honestly think they are going to care about babies dying and fetuses being underweight from the radiation exposure coming over the Pacific to the west coast of the United States and Canada? We know the radiation is there for it has been detected and reported on the inside pages of newspapers in small print that one would need a magnifying glass to read.
There now exists a new rule-of-thumb regarding the media: the less the media says about something the more dangerous it is. The thing that tells us we are in serious danger is the almost complete absence of anything in the papers about the dangers coming from Fukushima. The news is so bad that they cannot and will not print anything about it.
But now we have very disturbing reports about a 35% spike in infant mortality in Northwest cities since the meltdown in Fukushima. Dr. Janette Sherman and Joseph Mangano wrote:
U.S. babies are dying at an increased rate. The recent CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report indicates that eight cities in the northwest U.S. (Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose and Berkeley) reported the following data on deaths among those younger than one year of age:
4 weeks ending March 19, 2011: 37 deaths (avg. 9.25 per week)
10 weeks ending May 28, 2011: 125 deaths (avg. 12.50 per week)
This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant. Of further significance is that those dates include the four weeks before and the ten weeks after the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster. In 2001 the infant mortality was 6.834 per 1000 live births, increasing to 6.845 in 2007. All years from 2002 to 2007 were higher than the 2001 rate.
The Most Vulnerable
Infants and pregnant women are most at risk.
Doctors Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko say, “When children have the same menu as adults, they get up to five times higher (radiation) dose burdens from locally produced foodstuffs because of their lower weight and more active processes of metabolism.”
“It is well known that women are more susceptible—approximately twice as susceptible, or worse—to radiation’s harmful effects than men who get the same dose. Young people are more susceptible than old. Young children are perhaps ten times as susceptible to radiation’s dangers as adults are, because their cells are dividing and establishing themselves. The cells of some organs will continue to divide; but cells such as neurons and heart muscle cells stop dividing at adulthood. Cancer can also get established at this early stage. Cancer usually requires a long sequence of cell changes to occur—often 10 or 12 or more changes in the cell DNA’s structure will have to occur, which can take many years,” writes Ace Hoffman.
Hoffman continues saying, “Infants are even more susceptible than young children. Newborns, preemies… immune-challenged… even more so. Since Fukushima, our babies are dying at a significantly increased rate on the west coast of the United States (see article below). Across the country deaths are up as well, though not as much (ibid). Fetuses vary from “infinitely” more susceptible to radiation’s dangers, to thousands of times more when they are very small, to “merely” hundreds of times more as they grow, to whatever they are at birth—no one knows precisely.”
You just imagine the masses wondering how any of this can be true. How can babies die from nuclear radiation that is supposedly the safe low-level stuff that the government and media say could not harm a fly. Well for those who are wondering, watch this most current video from Arnie Gundersen who said, “In April, the average person in Seattle breathed in 10 hot particles a day.”
Dr. Sherman was probably not surprised about the increased birth deaths because she knows what happened at Chernobyl, having been the chief editor of the book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature, written by Drs. A. V. Yablokov, V. B., Nesterenko and A. V. Nesterenko, published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009. “Data from Chernobyl, which exploded 25 years ago, clearly shows increased numbers of sick and weak newborns and increased numbers of deaths in the unborn and newborns, especially soon after the meltdown. These occurred in Europe as well as the former Soviet Union. Similar findings are also seen in wildlife living in areas with increased radioactive fallout levels.”
Protect the Children, What Are You Waiting For?
Should the public discover the true health costs of nuclear pollution, a cry would rise from all parts of the world and people would refuse to cooperate passively with their own death. Dr. Rosalie Bertell
There are many alarming trends in pediatric care, not the least of which is increasing radiation exposure. It is now estimated that that the average child will get more than seven radiation scans by age 18 and this does not include dental X-rays. Most alarming is the increasing use of CT scans, which entail far more radiation and can raise the risk for cancer in children. X-rays of the chest, hands and feet are the most common. Forty-two percent of children had at least one radiation procedure and 25 percent had two or more during the three-year study period. Eight percent of the children got at least one CT scan, and more than three percent of children got two or more.
What we can do to save our children after they have been exposed to radiation is the most important thing a parent can learn at this point in time. We must acquire this knowledge before we or our children have been exposed, but now it’s already too late for that for a great number of people in the northern hemisphere.
Heavy Metal and Particle Vulnerability
Children are more vulnerable to the dangers of toxic chemicals than are adults, according to Herbert L. Needleman, M.D. and Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., authors of Raising Children Toxic Free. According to a study released in October 2004, conducted by the University of North Carolina, 21 percent of women of childbearing age have mercury levels in their hair that exceeds federal health standards. That is up from eight percent in just four years using a recent CDC study as a reference point. Under United States guidelines, 79 percent of Inuvik women of childbearing age have unsafe levels of mercury. Earlier this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a directive warning women of childbearing age to eat no more than two meals or 12 ounces of seafood, including canned tuna, weekly.
The life period with the highest adaptability and vulnerability to environmental factors: the period inside the womb.
Dr. Sandra Steingraber describes the particular vulnerability of children when it comes to mercury poisoning:
The placenta, which works well to bar pathogens from entering the womb, does a terrible job of keeping methylmercury out. In fact, the placenta actively pumps mercury into the fetal capillaries as though it were a precious molecule of calcium or iodine. This is why levels of mercury in the blood of a newborn typically exceed those of its mother by 70 percent. When confronted with methylmercury, the placenta functions more like a magnifying glass than a barrier. Once inside the fetal blood supply, mercury is carried to the fetal brain where it interferes with brain cell migration. Just as a spider can lower itself from the ceiling by reeling out a single strand of silk, a fetal brain cell moves from the center of the brain to the surface by rappelling along its own fiber. This process of brain cell migration begins in earnest during month four of pregnancy and continues after birth at least through the age of two. Methylmercury paralyzes migrating brain cells and thus interferes with their movement from center to surface. Methylmercury also halts cell division in the fetal brain by binding directly to neural chromosomes. The cerebellum—center of balance and coordination—is a special target of methylmercury. Prenatal exposures to methylmercury have also been linked to deficits in memory, learning, and attention span that persist into adolescence and appear irreversible. In short, human fetuses are more vulnerable than adults to the brain-addling powers of mercury for two immutable reasons: They receive a comparatively bigger exposure (because of the placenta’s concentrating powers), and their brain cells need to move and multiply.
A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency biochemist, Kathryn Mahaffey, estimates that one in six pregnant women in the United States had high enough blood mercury to damage her child, for a total of 630,000 U.S. newborns at risk. This was the first study to calculate the numbers based on children’s blood levels, not the mother’s blood. The new formula showed that one in six pregnant women had mercury levels in their blood of at least 3.5 parts per billion, sufficient for levels in the fetus to reach or surpass the EPA safety threshold of 5.8 parts per billion. In 1999-2000, the last year for which government data is available, this meant that 630,000 children were at risk instead of the original estimate of 320,000.
According to Dr. Sandra Steingraber, “The EPA has taken pains not to adopt the 630,000 figure as its official position. Calculated by EPA scientist Kathryn Mahaffey, these new estimates were published in Environmental Health Perspectives, April 2004.
Children are more vulnerable than adults to oxidative stress due to their naturally low glutathione levels from conception through infancy.– Erden-Inal 2003
More than 100 years ago Dr. Abraham Jacobi, the father of American pediatrics, recognized the importance of and need for age-appropriate pharmaceutical therapy when he wrote, “Pediatrics does not deal with miniature men and women with reduced doses and the same class of disease in smaller bodies, but… has its own independent range and horizon.” Modern pediatrics has abandoned this wisdom as demonstrated by the fact that vaccines are not adjusted down to the bodyweight of infants.
 Washington Post. Thursday, October 21, 2004. Study was commissioned by Greenpeace. The study found excess mercury levels in 21 percent of the 597 women of childbearing age who were tested. The study used hair samples so the internals levels of mercury accumulation could potentially be much higher for it is known not all people are able to excrete mercury equally well.
 Bueckert, Dennis. Canadian Press. Health Canada reviews its data as U.S. adopts stricter guidelines. November 20, 200
 Washington Post. February 6, 2004. EPA Revises Risk Estimates. Mercury Threat To Fetus Raised