Monday, September 29, 2014

FAQ: I want to try a Detox Bath but which Detox Bath is best?

When selecting a bath for detoxification, which of the LL Magnetic Clay baths is the best option if I’m not sure what I have in my system?
At Natural Healing Tools we carry a variety of detox bath health solutions. But if you aren't sure what the source is and you want to use a bath, the Clear Out Detox bath (available online here) is a place to start. 
The Clear Out Detox bath assists in eliminating mercury, lead, arsenic, and aluminum. This bath's herbs and spices assists in addressing the issues of parasites allergies, digestive disorders, anxiety, depression, memory and more. 
Symptoms may include: pain, parasites, worms, virus, bacterial, depression, anxiety, muscular pain, circulation, and digestion. 
Sources of toxins: adhesives, talc and body powders, broken thermometers, vaccinations, dental fillings, cosmetics, fungicides, laxatives, sea foods, sewage disposal, tattoos, suppositories and more. 
Use Guide (here) includes instruction to use as a detox foot bath or as a full bath. 
And - as with any health solution - if you have symptoms that are concerning you, see your personal health professional. 

Friday, September 26, 2014

What is so unique about Healing Honey?

Honey Bees

Q: How can Healing Honey be organic? Don’t the bees fly anywhere they want to?

A: We go to great lengths to produce our 100% certified organic manuka honey. The range of bees is about two to three miles from their hives in any direction. Our hives are intentionally located within a pristine nature preserve in New Zealand, more than 25 miles from even the closest road, house, or human activity, and far from any possible contamination that would compromise the quality of the honey. Each of our hives is visited by organic inspectors and is verified to be certified organic. To ensure our honey is pure, after every harvest, Healing Honey is meticulously tested to verify that it is free of over 160 possible chemical residues.

Any honey that isn't certified organic is highly suspect for a large number of chemicals. Many people spray flowers with chemicals, and wildflowers often grow in areas that have previously been contaminated by toxic chemicals. When the bees take nectar out of the contaminated flowers, they end up bringing those toxic chemicals into the hive.

Q: What does "active 15+" mean?

A: Active manuka honey has valuable antibacterial components that account for the more than 100-fold difference in potency over regular honey. Because not all manuka honey has these components, or is “active,” the manuka honey intended for therapeutic use is tested according to the methodology established by the University of Waikato in New Zealand to determine the level of active antibacterial components it contains. Phenol (also known as carbolic acid) is the accepted reference chemical in evaluating antiseptics and disinfectants in laboratory testing. In other words, our Manuka honey is compared to carbolic acid to determine how antiseptic it is. The antibacterial components are then designated a numerical rating that is based on this comparison. An active manuka honey such as ours, labeled 15+, provides the same antiseptic properties as a 15% phenol solution.

Q: Why doesn't Healing Honey have the UMF designation?

A: The UMF designation is strictly a for-profit marketing tool, and is not an independent verification system that is accepted by authorized laboratories. Synergy exclusively uses the most-respected independent test method, which was developed at the University of Waikato in New Zealand, for testing all of our Manuka Honey for its activity – this is the only testing method that is verifiable.

Q: What is the shelf life of Healing Honey? I noticed the product does not have an expiration date on it.

A: Honey is the only food on the planet that will never spoil, so it has an indefinite shelf life – scientists have found honey in the Egyptian pyramids that is over 2,000 years old! Even at this ripe age, this ancient honey was found to be completely nutritionally and enzymatically intact. Honey will crystallize as it ages, but this does not affect the properties of the honey in any way. You can rest assured that if you order a large quantity of our Healing Honey, it will be good for however long it takes you to use it up!

Q: Can Healing Honey be used like a regular honey, on a daily basis, or should it be reserved for special occasions?

A: Although the active ingredients in Healing Honey have been researched for their valuable healing properties, it is a food, not a medicine, and is meant to be enjoyed at any time and used in any way that appeals to you. Just keep in mind that it’s better to wait until a hot drink is somewhat cooled before putting the honey in, to preserve the enzymatic properties.

Q: Can I give Healing Honey to my child?

A: Pediatricians recommend that parents not give honey to children under 12 months because their digestive tract and organ systems are not fully developed. This recommendation is also true for many other foods. However, children older than one year can benefit greatly from consuming Healing Honey. In fact, due to Healing Honey's natural antimicrobial effects, it has been shown to be more effective in relieving kids' coughs (click here for recipe) than over-the-counter medicines. In addition, Healing Honey is an amazing restorative agent for the skin and can be applied to scrapes, cuts, burns and insect bites with very positive results.

Q: Are the bees that make Healing Honey allowed to eat their own honey for nourishment? Many bee companies feed the bees with sugar water when the honey is taken from the hive.

A: Our organic honeybees are nourished and supported exactly as if they were in the wild, and they live their natural life cycle precisely as nature intended. Unlike conventional beekeepers, we do not kill our bees at the end of the season, we do not artificially inseminate the queen, and we do not feed the bees sugar water. Our hives are placed in remote and pristine nature preserves, where the bees follow their instinctive foraging habits and feast on wild manuka blossoms. Just as their external environment is pure and uncontaminated, so is their internal environment. No chemicals or drugs are ever used in or near the hives, in the materials used to construct the hives or at any point in the extraction and packaging process. The active manuka honey is simply and gently extracted and poured, unheated and raw, into glass jars, thus preserving the honey’s vital live enzymatic constituents.

Q: How might one use your Healing Honey for wound healing?

A: There has been a great deal of research done on the healing properties of the active ingredient in Healing Honey, and although we cannot provide a specific therapeutic protocol, we can let you know about the findings of the research. The research shows that there are inherent antiseptic properties in raw 15+ manuka honey. This honey has been quite successful in treating wounds when it has been spread onto a sterile dressing and applied to a wound three times daily. For smaller abrasions or sores, researchers have put the 15+ manuka honey directly on the injury and covered it with a bandage. Active manuka honey is used in the hospital burn wards in New Zealand because of its immense healing properties as well as its ability to lessen the pain from severe burns.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

The Signs of EMF Sensitivity


Some of the EMF Sensitivity Symptoms:

  • Ringing in the ears
  • Sleeplessness
  • Dizziness
Many people are hyper sensitive to EMF but may not know it either. 

One way to determine EMF hypersensitivity may first eliminate chemicals from their immediate environment. Then turn to a Building Biologist to determine and mitigate sensitivities. 

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Love My Squatty Potty!





The Squatty Potty Ecco is:
  • Economical with out compromising efficacy
  • Ergonomic to allow for proper alignment for easier and efficient elimination
  • Durable, built to last a lifetime and will hold up to 300 lbs
  • Kid and Family approved (toddlers and kids LOVE it)
  • Clean and sanitary plastic
  • One size fits most (recommended for toilets over 15”)
  • Weight Capacity: 350 lbs

Monday, September 22, 2014

Is talking on your cell bad for you?

What can non-Ionized radiation do to you? 


WHO classifies the non-Ionized radiation from cell phones as a possible carcinogen. There is definitely a concern when this comes to children.

Check out what CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta has to say here .

From Natural Healing Tools EMF protection products our staff selection is the Waveshield Gold (Buy 3 Get 1 Free - Special Here)


Sunday, September 21, 2014

Saturday, September 20, 2014

A day in the life of a data mined kid


(MarketPlace.org - audio version available) Education, like pretty much everything else in our lives these days, is driven by data.
Our childrens’ data. A whole lot of it.
Nearly everything they do at school can be — and often is — recorded and tracked, and parents don't always know what information is being collected, where it’s going, or how it's being used.
The story begins at the bus stop.
Your child swipes his ID card and climbs on the bus. The card may contain an RFID or  radio frequency identification chip, which lets the school know when he gets on and off the bus. In some school districts, parents will get text alerts, letting them know their child arrived safely to school. The bus technology is presented as a way to keep children safer.
“The data collection begins even before he steps into the school,” says Khaliah Barnes, director of the Student Privacy Project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
And, says Barnes, in some schools it just keeps on going. RFID chips let schools track kids on school grounds. Administrators could know if a child leaves the building, or if he visits the school counselor.
“The issue is that this reveals specifically sensitive information,” says Barnes.
Location information is just one small part of a child’s data file.
In the classroom, teachers gather data on routine things like attendance, tardiness, test scores and grades. The kinds of records that used to be kept on paper.
In most states, the data are fed into a giant database, known as a “statewide longitudinal data system.” Different states collect different elements of personal student data. (You can look up your state here.)
In the last decade, the federal government has handed states more than $600 million to help them create these databases. The idea, says Stephen Balkam, head of the Family Online Safety Institute, is that “if we could keep track of our kids from kindergarten to 12th grade we'd have a much greater handle on what's working, what's not working, what needs to be added to the curriculum.”
The government isn't the only one trying to figure out what’s working by investing in and gobbling up data about your kid.
Sales of educational technology software for kids in kindergarten through high school reached nearly $8 billion last year, according to the Software and Information Industry Association.
One of the biggest players is the field is Knewton. It analyzes student data that it collects by keeping track of nearly every click and keystroke your child makes during digital lessons.
Jose Ferreira is Knewton’s CEO.  In a video posted by the Department of Education, he says “We literally know everything about what you know and how you learn best, everything.”
Knewton claims to gather millions of data points on millions of children each day. Ferreira calls education “the world’s most data-mineable industry by far.”
“We have five orders of magnitude more data about you than Google has,” he says in the video.  “We literally have more data about our students than any company has about anybody else about anything, and it’s not even close.”
Five orders of magnitude more data than Google is a whole lot of data.
The promise is that all that data can be used to tailor lessons to individual kids, to their strengths and weaknesses. They will become better learners, and that will lead to higher grades and better graduation rates.
Ferreira imagines a day when “you tell us what you had for breakfast every morning at the beginning of the semester, by the end of the semester, we should be able to tell you what you had for breakfast. Because you always did better on the days you had scrambled eggs.”
If the right breakfast makes for a better behaved child, that will be measured, too.
Teachers are increasingly relying on behavior monitoring software not only to keep kids on track, but to track them, too.
With the help of an iPad, the teacher record’s whether or not your child is being helpful and attentive or talking out of turn. The child is rewarded, often with points, for good behavior. Points are taken away when behavior is not so good.
All this data is stored online. Parents can check it daily. It can be turned into reports for teachers and administrators.
“We live in a 24/7 data mining universe today,” says Jim Steyer, CEO of Common Sense Media.  “And I think most of us parents and teachers and kids don't realize how much of our data is out there and used by other people.”
Steyer is also a parent. He says what worries him most is that “information that's very personal to me and my family, for example my kids disciplinary record or health record or something like that, is made available to somebody who it's no business to have that.”
There are federal laws in place that limit what type of information can be gathered on kids and how educational records can be shared. But many of these laws were written for an age of paper records.
Though states have started writing tougher student data privacy protections into their laws, privacy experts think there are still big holes.
study released last year by Fordham Law professor Joel Reidenberg found that very few school districts explicitly restrict the sale or marketing of student information in contracts with service providers.
There are also privacy issues with third-party educational apps, often brought into the classroom by teachers. Those apps may have weak privacy policies, or, in some cases, none at all.
Experts say the growth of technology in schools is happening faster than we can keep up with it.
At lunch, a child may use her ID to pay for her mini-cheeseburgers. When she does, her allergies and account balance may be displayed. It’s possible that her family’s financial information will also be linked in the software to her name and ID number.
Cafeteria software might also track exactly what she eats and whether she picks up chocolate or regular milk. In some schools, vending-machine purchases are recorded. Parents can log in at the end of the day and get a list of it all.
Should that child get in trouble, the principal may rely on discipline software to dole out her punishment. Some software advertises that it can save time by automating discipline consequences.
In gym class, some kids strap on heart-rate monitors, which record how hard they are working out. Some schools project this data up on the wall. Others base student P.E. grades on heart-rate measurements.
Other kids are asked to wear Fitbit-style wrist bands that record their activities at school, on the playground and at home — where the data grab continues.
Many schools have installed tracking technology on school-owned computers as a security measure. The technology allows schools to see where a kid is logging in from, via an IP address.
“At the beginning you would think there is no risk, that this is completely benign,” says Cameron Evans, chief technology officer for Microsoft Education.
But, if you start combining that data with other data sets, like addresses and phone numbers, you start getting into trickier territory. Especially if the tracking data doesn't match the data on record.
Imagine, says Evans that “over a period of time the IP address where that computer connects to the Internet is not where near the address on file for them. In fact, it's not even in the same school district."
A school could investigate. And maybe find out the child doesn't live in the district or that the reason he’s going to another part of town is because his parents have divorced. That may be enough to have that child labeled as  "at risk."
It's a label, says Evans, that could follow a kid through school.
“In the past, (schools) would have never had this data, but now that it's electronic, we can correlate data in a way that we never ever had the opportunity to do before."
The larger concern, he says, is that connecting all those dots can create a profile of a student that can follow him from kindergarten through college. Maybe even into the workforce.
It’s the prospect of that permanent data trail, say privacy advocates, that makes it so important that schools, teachers and parent wrestle with student data issues now.

Use of Cell Phones Increase Cancer Risk

(DNA, August 18) Dr Dariusz Leszczynski, Adjunct Professor, Division of Biochemistry and cellphone radiation as possibly carcinogenic, in conversation with Maitri Porecha, reveals how leading cell phone operators and manufacturers are withdrawing funding for research, leading to closing down of laboratories studying effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields as emitted by cellphones and cell towers. Excerpts -
1. How was cell phone radiation categorized as group 2B carcinogen, based on increasing risk of Glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and WHO?
The number of mobile phone subscriptions is estimated at 5 billion globally. With rising concerns over adverse health effects, in 2010, IARC invited thirty one experts to evaluate evidence involving carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation. The experts assembled at IARC headquarters in Lyon, France, in a meeting that lasted for twelve days in 2011. Experts shared the complex task of tackling the exposure data, the studies of cancer in humans, the studies of cancer in experimental animals, and the mechanistic and other relevant data. Groups worked separately and together sifting through many hundred research studies. After intense deliberations, we agreed upon the group 2B classification.
2. On one hand, cell tower operators and industry stake holders say that cell phone radiation does not cause cancer, on the other hand the residents or activists posit a precautionary stand point by saying that it may cause cancer. Why there is no clarity?
The IARC-WHO classification of cell phone radiation is misrepresented by the industry. Classification of cell phone radiation as 'a possible carcinogen to humans’ means that there are enough studies indicating that it might cause cancer and that we urgently need more research to clarify this issue. The strongest evidence that it might be causing cancer comes from three epidemiological studies. In 2011, two sets of studies were available – EU's Interphone study and a series of studies from Lennart Hardell’s group in Sweden. Recently, CERENAT study from France published in 2014, similarly indicated that persons using cell phones for more than ten years and for half hour per day are at a higher risk for developing brain cancer. In fact now the evidence is sufficient to consider cell phone radiation as a probable carcinogen – Group 2A in IARC’s scale of carcinogenicity.
3. Could you describe your work on cell phone radiation? Did you discover that it has ill effects on human health and if yes, in what way?
Our research has shown that human cells exposed in laboratory to cell phone radiation activated series of biochemical reactions in them known as 'stress response,' which means that the living cells recognize cell phone radiation as a potentially harmful agent. Stress responses are signals that intend to protect the living cell from any potential damage. In the 2008 study conducted by us, a small area of human forearm's skin in ten volunteers was exposed to GSM signal for one hour. After that, pieces of the radiation exposed skin and unexposed skin were collected and used for 'proteomic analysis.' In it, all proteins from the skin samples were extracted and amounts of different kinds of proteins in exposed and unexposed skin samples were compared. After the analysis of nearly 580 proteins, we identified eight proteins which were statistically significantly affected. We determined that the amounts of several proteins were changing after the exposure. After acquiring this result in the pilot ten-volunteer-study, we intended to conduct a larger study with 100 volunteers from 2009 onwards. This study did not start due to lack of funding and opposition from the telecom industry stakeholders.
4. Why did the government did not sanction funds? What happened?
My laboratory studies on effects of cell phone radiation to human health began in 1999. My lab, which was government-run, was closed down in 2013 due to lack of funding as certain cell phone manufacturers and network operators in Finland were opposing the large scale human studies. We receive grants from government to conduct studies but in spite of making positive headway on research our funding was stopped. We were cut off from funding as the telecom industry was against it.
While majority of the funding for such research projects consists of tax payers money and industry pumps in only a part of the money, the advice of industry is highly valued during sanctioning of funds by the government.
5. How much funding was expended during the last 15 years and how much more funding would be required to require to bring your studies to a proper conclusion?
I was working on cell phone radiation effects for the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. My research group has expended over the 15 years period well over one million euros. Some persons in the Finnish bureaucracy decided that basic research should be done in universities and thus basic research labs in government-run institutes were closed in a bid to save money in 2013. The 2009 study was planned to last about three years and entailed enrolling 100 human volunteers. There was a very real possibility of securing such funding from the EU research program but my research group was not permitted to do it. In order to continue the abruptly stopped study on humans, we would require some quarter million euros in funding. Industry provides jobs for people and therefore research policy decisions are taken by the government are influenced by it. The industry denied funding. To conduct that kind of human volunteer study, qualified personnel, laboratory space and sufficient funding is needed, of which I have none currently.
6. Do you believe that the standards set by the Indian Telecommunications Ministry in September 2012 at 450 milliwatts/square meter (900MHz) for Electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation which is one tenth of what is prescribed by International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) enough when the government admitted in September 2012 that 95% of the mobile tower antennae were below the revised norms of 450 milliwatts/square meter radiation? Also, when most towers are well below those permissible limits, what is the logic behind Telecom ministry's bringing down the levels from 4500 mW/sq m to 450 mW/sq m?
ICNIRP is an organization of scientists, claiming that they are independent in their scientific opinions. However, there is a major problem – ICNIRP selects members in fashion resembling “private club” practices. The current members of ICNIRP select new members. This model leads to situation where all ICNIRP members have the same opinion on the dangers of cell phone radiation. When all ICNIRP scientists have the same opinion there is no need for scientific debate – there is a prior, existing consensus. This was not the case in the WHO’s IARC evaluation, where scientists with diverse, often opposing opinions were invited.
ICNIRP safety standards for radiation emissions from cell phones and cell towers may not be sufficient to protect people. The IARC classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen invalidates the protective claims of the current ICNIRP safety standards. In epidemiological case-control studies evaluated by IARC (Interphone and Hardell) and published after IARC evaluation (CERENAT), adult participants used regular, off-the-shelf, cell phones. These cell phones were built to fulfill ICNIRP safety standards. However, avid use of such "ICNIRP-safe phones," for period of over 10 years, led to an increased risk of brain cancer. This means that the current safety standards do not protect sufficiently users of cell phones and this also casts a doubt over the validity of safety standards set for cell towers.
Of what I have seen from the pictures of India, as also what I have seen while visiting India, there are numerous situations where there are too many antennas located en masse, in huge clusters. Whether such clusters fulfill the current Indian safety standards should be examined. It is up to the local politicians and government to make sure that safety standards are met and to determine if present safety standards are questionable.
7. Certain Australian schools are banning Wi-Fi, what is the rationale behind taking such steps?
There is a discussion in Australia, Canada, US, Europe about the possibility of harm caused by Wi-Fi. Some school principals are banning Wi-Fi, due to pressure from parents of the children. Grass root movements of parents concerned with Wi-Fi in schools is, in some cases, very strong. Wi-Fi radiation is similar to that emitted by cell phones and cell towers, which have been classified as a ‘possible’ carcinogen.
We can be legitimately concerned about what might happen to children, who are very young and spend seven to eight hours continuously exposed to Wi-Fi radiation. It is a responsible precautionary measure to ban Wi-Fi in schools. There are places where providing wired internet is not possible, like in railway stations or airports, but in schools wired internet is possible to install. There is no real need for Wi-Fi for schools.
In other places, where the wired internet is not feasible, is also possible to introduce precautionary measures. In airports or railway stations, there are enclosed spaces where people can gather and smoke tobacco. Others are not exposed to smoke.
A similar thing can be done for providing Wi-Fi connectivity. There could be provided enclosed areas, with walls built of materials not allowing Wi-Fi radiation to go outside, where Wi-Fi access would be provided without unnecessary exposing everyone.
8. WHO is working on a new report summarizing the health risks of radio-frequency fields, to be published next year? What is the researchers' fraternity expecting out of the report? As also, do you think there is now evidence enough after the release of French epidemiological study in 2014 that classification of cell phone radiation should be shifted from Group 2B to Group 2A or Group 1?
The yet to be released WHO report has been delayed for ten years. They were waiting for the results to see if the Interphone project was finalized and, later, for the IARC evaluation of carcinogenicity. The WHO report will analyze all effects of radiation possibly fertility in humans and other health issues, not only cancer.
ICNIRP scientists are involved in the WHO report and, therefore, one cannot expect that it will substantially differ from what ICNIRP is saying.
The recent French CERENAT epidemiological study provides, together with Interphone and Hardell studies, is an evidence sufficient to consider cell phone radiation as a probable carcinogen – Group 2A in IARC’s scale of carcinogenicity.
9. Recently the industry has started a campaign stating that radiation from mobile towers and mobile phones is not hazardous. They have brought in researchers like Dr Mike Repacholi, the ex co-ordinator of the radiation and environment health unit of WHO, who has claimed there are no health hazards from mobile towers/phone radiation. Do you agree with his statements?
The industry likes to call on scientists who will endorse their product and say that it is safe. Hence, Dr Repacholi visited India and spoke publicly about the safety of cell phones as well as cell towers. I disagree with Dr Repacholi. He says that we don't have and we will not have in the future health problems due to cell phone and cell tower radiation. In my opinion the scientific evidence is still insufficient to say that cell phone radiation is harmless. We need both better research and, for the time being, implementation of the European Union’s Precautionary Principle until there is further clarity.