Health Truth Revealed
February 20, 2007
Author claims proof dates back to atomic blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Petersburg, VA - What you can't see, can hurt you. Just ask James P. Hilton a 45 year old paramedic educator turned freelance journalist. In his newly launched book, Playing With Fire: What Everyone Needs To Know to Protect Their Health From X-rays (www.playingwithfire123.com) Hilton claims airport Backscatter x-ray machines, sometimes called "virtual strip searches" for their ability to allow security men to see beneath people's clothing, are setting the stage for a future epidemic of cancer.
Thus far, news coverage has swirled almost exclusively around the more emotionally charged, "privacy concerns." But according to Hilton the looming issue is whether repeated bombardment with radiation is "planting the seeds" of disease. "In light of the abundance of evidence attesting to radiation's proven dangers, it is unfathomable that any competent, unbiased doctor could take the position that x-rays do not pose a menace to all living cells through which they pass, leaving behind a painful and costly trail of destruction," he wrote.
According to research uncovered in Playing With Fire, ionizing (penetrating) radiation in any dose, no matter how tiny, causes genetic mutations, which set all living cells exposed on the path to cancer. X-rays are considered ionizing radiation. Drawing on sources like The Mayo Clinic and The Radiological Society of North America as well as interviews with prominent radiologists, molecular biologists, and medical doctors, Hilton says Playing With Fire constructs an "iron clad" case. However, the manufacturer of the new Backscatter machines, currently being piloted at several airports, along with the FDA have given assurances of the device's "complete safety" for everyone. Hilton shoots back,"it is undisputed within scientific circles that even a single x-ray increases a three month old's chances of developing cancer in later life by at least 10 times, and yet they have plowed ahead approving up to 5000 backscatter images per person, per year. It's unconscionable."
"Predictably" he wrote, "the product's manufacturer spins out the usual half truths, citing a "very low level of x-rays'" and boasting the opinion, packaged to appear as fact, that, "The system is completely safe for all persons..." Back peddling authorities are now trying to appease the public by saying everyone will be allowed to opt out. I say, sure, for now."
Playing with Fire also takes aim at other non-medically essential use of radiation including pre-employment, excessive dental and chiropractic x-rays, newly developed "Silent Guardian" microwave crowd control devices and even questioning why there have been no studies proving police radar beams pointed at drivers do not contribute to cataracts.
The book further instructs readers how to use antioxidants to minimize the damage from radiation exposure and also how to convert an AM/FM portable radio into a basic radiation detection device in order to locate and avoid sources of electromagnetic fields in the home or at work.
from Playing With Fire
• Just one full body CT scan exposes a person to "...about the same dose of radiation as if you had been standing a mile and a half away from the atom bomb exploded at Hiroshima."
• One review of 80,000 medical practitioners concluded that radiologists live on average, five years less than other medical personnel.
• Predictably, the [Backscatter] manufacturer's web site spins out the usual half truths, citing a "...very low level of x-rays," and boasting the opinion, packaged to appear as fact that, "The system is completely safe for all persons..." Authorities are saying everyone will be allowed to "opt out." Sure; for now.
• Even a single x-ray increases a 3 month old's chances of developing cancer in later life by 10 times.
• "You should fear a doctor with an x-ray machine as you would a six year old waving a loaded gun. Most doctors...give you the same assurances that I was given more than thirty years ago by my professors in medical school. They'll tell you that radiation is at such a low level that it can't do any harm. That's just as much hogwash today as it was then." -Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. (Former associate professor of medicine, University of Illinois Medical School and chairman of the state's medical licensing committee).
• Lives get cut short and people die totally avoidable, agonizing deaths, long before their time, just so doctors can pay off their "investment' in an office x-ray suite, or so some entrepreneur who invents a new machine for airports can make a fortune, or so hospital chains and insurance companies can generate a profit, or so a sales rep who sells x-ray machines can collect his commission.
• So called risk/benefit assessments which attempt to balance "health effects" against "economic benefits" are too often structured to focus on risks and benefits to society (read governments and big business) as opposed to families or individuals (people).
• There is a huge gulf between the term permissible and the word safe.
• A ten year old boy exposed to a full mouth dental x-ray exam has a one-in-600 chance of developing cancer in later life.
• It is incomprehensible that any competent, unbiased doctor could take the position that routine medical/dental, preemployment, immigration, and now airport x-rays, do not pose a menace to all living cells through which they pass, leaving behind a painful and costly trail of destruction.
• At the dentist and doctor's office, seeing as it is they who stand safely behind a lead wall, it will be you, not them who may develope cancer from the x-ray beam they are about to shoot through your body.Therefore, the final decision on whether the benefits outweigh the risks, rightfully belongs with you, today's innocent patient, turned tomorrow's potential cancer victim.
• Ask [your doctor] if he can produce even a single study which proves that radiation when combined with the hundreds of other known carcinogens spilling into our air, water, and food is in fact safe? He couldn't even produce a study which took so many variables into account.
• Why on earth should only "medical doctors" be permitted air time to express opinions on public health matters which impact the health and liberty of literally every single citizen in the nation?
• If all those "experts" advocating "permissible" exposures are wrong, as I and many others believe they are, then this will be their lasting legacy, the fruit of their terribly mistaken judgment. They will have to answer to God. Medical history is chock full of such tragic arrogance, killing millions. It is my hope and belief that we can do better.