Paused at 0:00.
UQUA. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Well, welcome to Ask Your Herb Doctor. My name is Andrew Murray. My name is Sarah Johanneson Murray. For those of you perhaps who have never listened to the shows before, which run every third Friday of the month from 7pm till 8pm, we're both licensed medical herbalists who trained in England and graduated there with a Master's Degree in herbal medicine. Okay, so I'm going to start the intro a little bit differently this month. Thank you so much for joining us.
As always, we'll run the lines, the call-in lines live from 7.30 to 8 o'clock. I'll be very keen to have people asking questions about the relevant subjects that we're going to bring out this evening, but if you do have any other questions, feel free. So, let me see here. Let's just get straight into introducing Dr. Peat, and we'll go from there. I'll explain what we're going to be talking about after we've introduced Dr. Peat this evening. So, Dr. Peat, you with us? Yes. Okay, thanks so much for joining us.
As always, very happy, very pleased, very honoured to have you on the show, giving your time freely, the way you have done countless times, not just for us but for other radio shows I know across America. For those people who perhaps have never heard of you before, I think they're gradually decreasing in numbers as the Internet gets more and more coverage, and people spread the truth. Let's not say the new but the truth about what it is you've been exposing for the last 40 years
in terms of mainstream medicine and the ideology and dogma that has pervaded most of mainstream media and ideology. Would you just let people know where your educational academic background is from and the kind of subjects that you've been specialising in before we open up tonight's topics? From 1968 to '72, I studied at the University of Oregon, biology, specialising in physiology, especially reproductive, ageing physiology. Before that, it was linguistics and literature mostly. Since then, I've been studying the implications of the research I did for my PhD.
I know that your specialty, you say, is thyroid and hormones, reproductive hormones. I know we've covered some of the contents of what we're going to bring out tonight. Tonight's topics, I wanted to carry on with the kind of loosely termed nitrosamines formed. I know we've talked about it in food, but also as a component of water. So I wanted to get into water quality. I've got a few articles to cover and a couple of fairly recent mandates by the EPA
and how that ties into the policies that are being formed in America in allegiance with the United Nations and how the United Nations mandates in America are becoming more influential and how that relates constitutionally to how things are actually enacted here in America, having a constitution like we do. So I wanted to mention a gentleman called Richard Radcliffe, and he's a chemist and a water resource engineer, and he's studied water for 15 years or so. And he states that there's hundreds if not thousands of disinfection byproducts
that form when chlorine is added to water to disinfect it. And the scary thing he says that he's studied it for 15 years and that they can only identify about 50% of them and that most are likely to be carcinogenic. He said that he simply don't know all the byproducts they're creating by disinfecting water with chlorine. Now for us, this is a side note, but for us obviously we manufacture medicinal herbs. We use spring water. We're very fortunate that we don't live in the city. We don't use municipal water.
If I did, I would be using bottled water or spring water or water from some other non-municipal source anyway because the very idea of having chlorine in the water and creating some kind of medicine from this is abhorrent. But what's your view of chlorine in the water and how it interacts with the organic components that are still present even though to some extent it's filtered and micro-filtered and their byproducts and how that relates to human health? Some city water departments have discovered that it's doable to use ultraviolet light or peroxide,
hydrogen peroxide or ozone, various oxidizing methods that don't leave any residue. In fact, they tend to oxidize and detoxify any of the chemical contaminants that are in the water. I did hear from the Redway Water Department that they are thinking, or the Garboville-Redway area, our local area here, that they're thinking of using ultraviolet light to start disinfecting the water. And Michael, did you have something to say? I can comment. I'm actually on the Redway board. We do have a spring that's coming on, which is very, very clean water to begin with,
and we're planning on using an ultraviolet light to disinfect that. But the state still makes us chlorinate it after that. There's a bunch of different things. I think the ultraviolet light does not kill some sort of like jardi or something. It's a tough technology to work, and I personally am very, very interested in it because as much as our health is impacted, it's also what comes out the sewage waste is treated. And, you know, any chromium, for instance, you have in that, instead of being divalent chromium becomes hexavalent chromium, and there's lots of problems.
We use UV after it as a post-treatment, so everything gets filtered first. Yeah, I mean, filtration helps a lot, but for city water, the state really makes you chlorinate stuff. And any of the "spring water" that you're buying, any commercial water you bought, has been treated with chlorine and hyper-filtered, so it's much more cost-efficient to buy the very best filter you can and use that on the municipal water because they're using municipal water at the water spring. Even in our local South Fork Mountain water? Maybe not that, but you'd have to check.
They're certainly chlorinating it before they're reverse osmosing it. I'm not 100% sure, but really check your source, and any of the mainstream waters are owned by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo and whatnot. Oh, yeah, I know, I know. You know that. Smart water. Dr. Peat, getting back to you, Dr. Peat, and your take on the chlorination issue. Well, if you have to use city water, I think it's good to at least let it stand in an open container for 12 hours or so
or heat it to drive off as much of the chlorine and organic chlorides as possible. Do you have any experience either in research or just in the scientific literature about the effects of chlorine reacting with organic compounds to form toxic byproducts? Not no particular research, but chlorine, it's a very powerful oxidizer, and so it reacts with anything, any carbon compound that happens to be dissolved in the water. Okay, because the next thing that I found when I was looking at this is that chlorine seems to be somewhat going out of fashion.
I know that when they pump water through municipal pipework, that because the network is getting so extensive now, that because chlorine is so volatile, some of the effectiveness of the chlorine has been reduced. And so now they're using chloramines, and it's a kind of compound ammonia and chlorine together. It's a lot more persistent. You can't just let it evaporate in a container or anything like that. And it's extremely hard to filter out, believe it or not.
I think you have to have a very good quality carbon wrap filter in order to bind those compounds to it. But I think probably what was more interesting was that the toxic byproducts from chloramination are far more, it was stated as a thousand times more toxic. Have you heard of chloramination? Just vaguely, but it's relating to the research that started around 1970 on the nitrosamines. The chloramine largely breaks down to form the nitrosamines, the NDMA, nitrosodimethylamine. And I think there is pressure from the food and agricultural industry to propagandize that the nitrosamines aren't carcinogenic,
which they were established to be 40 some years ago, because it's profitable to fertilize heavily with nitrogen fertilizer and also to preserve foods with nitrates and nitrites. And so there's a lot of propagandistic science publication going on saying that rather than being toxic, the nitrites and nitrates and even the nitrosamines, they're not only supposed to be non-carcinogenic, but they're now saying that they're even beneficial to the health, reducing heart disease and reducing cancer and helping to build muscle and so on.
Because these are the very things they've been saying are carcinogenic about nitrates in meats that's kept, you're treated with nitrates. Yeah, that was a big thing around 1970 when they saw that babies that were fed pureed spinach, for example, sometimes turned blue because of the interference of the hemoglobin. Yeah, with making the hemoglobin unable to carry oxygen. Because it binds to hemoglobin, doesn't it? Yeah. And the nitrates do that even when we make them internally from proteins under stress. But because of the food industry concern about selling their products,
there has been this reaction saying that it was only a few farms that had nitrate contaminated water that really were causing the baby problems. Right. And this would have been from a kind of chemical runoff, fertilizer or manure runoff. Yeah. And they tried to reduce it to nothing but the blue baby phenomenon and to distract attention from the really universally recognized tumor promoting potential of all of the nitrates and nitrites and nitrosamines. I also understand that this compound chloramine is extremely toxic to kidney dialysis patients.
They can't use water for dialyzing if it's been treated with chloramine and is extremely toxic to fish. Yeah. Did you hear that Dr. Peat? Yeah. Sorry. Okay. All right. Ms. Sarah. Michael, our engineer has something to tell us about the chloramines. Oh, well, just that they are super, super toxic in the triclosan hand sanitizers. They're all that same chemistry. And actually, I first inquired at my water district long before I was on the board about whether we used chlorine or chloramine because I grew up in the Bay Area where they use chloramine.
And apparently our chemical, we asked, the office asked, and our chemical supplier said, I wouldn't even sell that poison. So that's someone who sells chlorine for a living. He claims he wouldn't even sell that, quote, poison of the chloramine. So the Redway Garboville water is treated with chlorine. The Redway water, Garboville, I believe is too, but we're separate. Oh, okay. Sorry. Yeah. Almost everyone is using chlorine these days, but obviously some people are still using chloramine. Yeah. Thank you, Michael.
Okay. You're listening to Ask Europe. Dr. Ron Kamey, DeGarboville, 91.1 FM from 730 till the end of the show at 8 o'clock. You're invited to call in with any questions either related or unrelated to this subject of water quality. We're going to be getting into global warming and a couple of other controversial subjects. Let's just leave it at that until we get to the point here. Okay. So, Dr. Peat, getting on to the potential toxins, if you like, from the byproducts of breakdown reacting with chlorine and chloramines.
Surely, and again, it's a kind of a difficult question just to say what do you do? Because it really is a consequence of just modern living where we're all living in, well, we don't fortunately. But, you know, modern living in cities, having the government take care of your water supply rather than you taking care of it. And then the government coming up with these kind of policies like chlorine and chloramine without and having this kind of the lesser of two evils rationale for it.
That there's far few people hurt from the toxic byproducts and there is that would die from dysentery or some other related, you know, fecal contamination or, you know, that kind of thing. How do you feel about city? I mean, you live in Eugene, don't you? Yes. Yeah. Okay. So, do you do anything particularly to your water? Oh, yeah. We always filter it. We never drink it straight out of the faucet. Even though it comes from the Mackenzie River, which is one of the least polluted rivers.
But just because of the chlorine issue, we never drink plain water. And if you make coffee with city water, that's one of the practical ways of filtering it. Heavy metals are very efficiently bound to the coffee grounds. If you make the drip method coffee. To the coffee grounds. Yeah. So that you put in dirty water and you get clean coffee. Okay. Interesting. Okay. So, I don't know that Michael said that there was somebody who was on the air. I don't know if there is. Yeah. If they're there, let's take them and see.
Okay. Caller, you're on the air. Where are you from? Hey, I'm from Whale Gulch. Okay. Go ahead. What's your question? I want to ask the doctor what his opinion is of medical marijuana and the possibility of its use to everybody. Okay. Dr. Peat. For its use for what? He said everybody. Oh. Oh. The community, to the world. You know, medical marijuana is a wonderful thing. It can ease a lot of difficult situations. When I was about nine years old, a doctor prescribed marijuana and gave me a big paper bag,
about a half a cubic foot of marijuana leaves to make a tea. And I took it every day until the bag was used up. But I wasn't especially impressed by it. My problem was just migraines occasionally. But I know it is very good for... You have to be very careful. It's a very powerful herb, you know, and you want to just take the minute quantities of it in order to get the maximum gentle feeling of the drug. Okay. Thanks for your call, Carla. Okay.
Okay. And also, I don't know if anybody is listening, if they do want to call in, please don't have your radio on. It really interferes with the dynamics here in the show. Okay. So, Dr. Peat, I also saw, whilst I was looking at the whole chloramination issue, that there was a nationwide study on water treatment contaminants done by the EPA, and it reported that chloraminated drinking water had the highest levels of an unregulated chemical family known as the iodoacids. Have you heard of it? I've never even heard of these things. No. No, I don't know.
So, they carried on to say that some researchers considered the iodoacids to be potentially the most toxic group of water treatment contaminants found to date, but they did also say that there's still relatively little research on them. So, okay, so that's the water. I know that, as I said, kind of municipal entities want to keep themselves covered, and that when the EPA allow these things, they're certainly not going to stop using them. Michael, what did you have? Oh, that means another caller.
Oh, okay. I wasn't sure if you wanted to say something. Let's take this next caller, then. Hi, caller. You're on the air. Where are you from? Hi. I'm in Crescent City. Crescent City. What's your question? I wanted to – I was doing other things when I heard you talk something about chlorine in the water, and I've noticed when I take a water bottle of water on a hike with me recently, and I open it up, I get a blast of chlorine, of gas coming out.
And so what I've started doing is – I have cups of water around the house so I can drink water. And so what I do now is I fill a cup of water, and then I just leave it sitting around, and it'll out gas. And, you know, because chlorine's a gas. So there's two products, basically, I guess you would be concerned about. One is the gas, which is real easy to get rid of. You don't need a filter.
You just fill a bottle or a pot and let it sit around for a couple hours or days. I'm not sure how long. And then the other thing is the chlorine that's already reacted with biological or organic matters in your water. That you might, I suppose, get with a filter, although I don't know how much that is. Some of that evaporates, too. So there's two things. There's the chlorine gas, and then there's molecules or organic matter that's already reacted with the chlorine
that's probably not going to out gas, which you might want to filter if you think there's a lot of that. But I have a hunch that most of it is the gas. And if you just simply let it sit out in the air for hours or days, I'm not sure how long, it'll... And you know how you could tell? Just try letting it sit out different amounts of time and then put it into a bottle and let it sit in the bottle for a long time.
And then open the bottle, and you can just smell it. I mean, you can smell down to, I don't know, about one part per billion or something like that. I think the whole point is the chlorine is actually the main culprit that's actually reacting with other organic compounds to form. Yeah. Toxic byproducts. And yes, you're right when you say you can cap the product and take the top off, and then the chlorine gas is released into the atmosphere. But it's more what we're getting at here, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't do this.
I'm just opening it up for discussion as part of what we're covering tonight is that the product itself, chlorine, produces a lot of toxic byproducts from the organic matter in the water. Yeah. Even at small levels of which some of it is extremely toxic, and the chloramine is even more potent at doing that, so it's even worse. Thank you for your call. Yeah. So anyway, so that's an experiment somebody could do about letting the water sit out different periods of time,
then putting it into a bottle and letting it sit around for at least a day or two, and then open the bottle and see if you can smell the chlorine and see how long it needs to sit around for the amount that you can detect with your nose. All right. I appreciate your call. Now, Dr. Peat, you were going to -- I didn't want to cut you off if you wanted to add something to that because there is another caller on the line.
Oh, well, chloroform and other chlorinated hydrocarbons are volatile too, so they will gas out. Okay. All right. So we have another caller here on the line. Hello. Hi, caller. Where are you from and what's your question? Fort Bragg. Fort Bragg. Hey, what's your question? Yeah, just wondered if -- I mean, a doctor might have some information on this, might not. I just wanted to add regarding that, and that's what I was wondering about is the best, you know, filtration system for everyone, you know, could use right now. Yeah.
And years ago I was in marketing of water filters. At that time we had a very high-quality pressed carbon block filter, and that was supposed to be very good for taking out not just chlorine but some of the organic trihalomethane that are produced by having chlorine in the water. Absolutely. We haven't mentioned those, but you're very right. And some other pretty rough stuff, geotriolambic cyst, it would take that out. Yeah. Well, I've got an answer for you, but I will let Dr. Peat go first because I'm -- I'd be curious.
One other thing I wanted to add is for someone who doesn't -- you know, really can't filter all the different locations in the home, probably the best location is the shower because the body is the largest organ. That's right. And you can always take drinking water, you know, out of a shower and put it in the kitchen in a glass container of some sort. Yeah. But anyway, just a couple of thoughts. Okay. Good, good. Dr. Peat. Carbon does absorb and even destroy some of the compounds, but it isn't a complete safety method. Okay.
Well, I wanted to add to this that we use, and I have used this ever since we first started producing extracts, probably because I'm British and I knew about it, but Royal Dalton is the China manufacturer in England that's produced the fine bone china for over 100 years. And they developed and patented a process by which they produce ceramic filters, which go down to about two angstroms, I think, extremely fine, a submicron filter. That's just the outside of it. They do a five-stage filter where the outside of the shell is a micro-crystalline ceramic,
and then they have a silver, like a colloidal silver membrane. They have an activated carbon block core with an ion exchange resin part of the filter too. So it takes out virtually everything. It leaves some minerals in. It leaves the taste of the water unchanged. It's the only filter that I know of that is actually actively endorsed by the World Health Organization, not that I'm endorsing the World Health Organization as an entity, because I'll actually be getting a touch on a little bit of that a little bit later,
but I don't want to get too political with it. So the World Health Organization actually endorsed this filter for use, especially in third world countries where you can literally take pond water, pump it through this filter, which does take at least 30 psi to get a reasonable flow from it. It's not something you're probably going to do with a whole house, but for a drinking water faucet, it's a very good way of producing excellent quality water that's completely free of giardia, all sorts of cysts. It takes out viruses.
It binds ionically to any of those known positively charged or even negatively charged cations and anions in the water. It'll take out all of the metal contaminations, things like, you know, manganese, not all of that, but it will take out some of those more toxic ones, so mercury and other parts. I think it takes out silver and that kind of thing too. Pardon me. They do have a whole house system too. They do, but I don't think you're going to get enough flow to get your shower turned.
Another gentleman mentioned showers, and I know there's quite a few different places that have shower heads that are filters with reported water rates, flow rates, and reported reduction, especially of things like chlorine, that are available. I actually have one on my shower because I used to get such a strong chlorine smell, and you get a much, much less chlorine smell after using just--it cost like 20 bucks. I got it at the health food store, and it screws in between my nozzle and the pipe. Is it just a little carbon block that's--
Yes, and then it starts--I think it only lasts for a year or so, probably depending on how long your showers are. Excellent. Okay, so you're listening to AskUF Doctor on KMU DeGallagher, 91.1 FM, and from now until the end of the show at 8 o'clock, you're invited to call in with either questions related to this month's subject of water quality, global warming, amongst other things, and general government control, if you like, of what's going on in the health care. So the number here if you live in the area is 923-3911.
If you're outside the area, there's a toll-free number, 1-800-KMUD-RAD, or 1-800-568-3723. So Dr. Peat, I did want to--and I don't want to get too political, but it's an interesting subject because, again, we're an alternative radio show. This is an alternative radio station, for crying out loud. I think the subject's definitely worth airing. At the end of the day, I have seen so much convincing scientific evidence to refute global warming that I think this is a subject that I would like to try and open up a little bit to get to some of the financial background
behind some of the mandates that both the EPA and the government are putting into place to basically counter the supposed carbon dioxide threat to global warming. Because I know--and I wanted to bring this out, Dr. Peat, because I know that you're passionately an advocate of carbon dioxide in living systems. And the people that I would point the radio listeners to, to go on the web and listen to this very, very well-educated and eloquent, scientifically backed up by so many scientists around the world, people that have worked with NOAA in America, the North American--North Atlantic--
No, NOAA is the--N-O-A-A dot gov. It's a North--no, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Sorry. Okay. So I wanted to talk a little bit about that because it ties so many different parts of what I know you have got a lot of information on. It ties in the financial corruption that there is in the world which kind of makes medicine go in skewed directions, really, sometimes not following the science but following the money. And I think it's a very interesting subject that needs to be opened up
so that we can really hear the full debate about this. I think a lot of people, unfortunately, go along with it because it maybe just sounds that we are such an evil species producing such a lot of evil carbon dioxide that we need to be controlled when I know that this particular person, Lord Christopher Monckton, who is an English lord, he has actually taken this upon himself as a fairly lifetime commitment to exposing the lies about global warming. And if people want to go to YouTube, his name is Christopher Monckton,
M-O-N-C-T-O-N, and if you typed into a YouTube search "Christopher Monckton, climate change," you will see quite a number of interviews with Christopher Monckton. Now, he presented himself at the Paris climate talks. He's been to the ICPP, and he delivered a speech to Congress in 2013 purely because Al Gore's program, a documentary that he got a Nobel Prize for, actually turned out to be so false, and there were about 40 different statements in there that were proved to be false, that the English government had to take it out of the curriculum in the schools.
So anyway, it's interesting that there's always more than one side to any argument. And whilst I won't just promote any one side, the truth is always out there, and I think science is always able to back it up. So that's why I really appreciate what you bring to the table, Dr. Peat, because you're a scientist, and, you know, people can say what they want, but if they don't have the evidence to back it up, it's not really worth too much. So the whole global warming thing, your opinion on CO2,
I mean, do you think we could do with less CO2 in the Earth than we have now? Do you have much of a voice about the previous levels of CO2 and what it meant for plants and humans? Yeah, there was the Carboniferous Age, when there was just tremendous luxury and growth of vegetation because of high atmospheric carbon dioxide. One of the things that got me interested in the issue, I think it was 1969 that I saw the study, correlating the ratio of babies' head size and chest circumference
to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And this was showing evidence that brains were getting bigger as carbon dioxide increased. And there are several reasons why that would happen. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere helps the body to retain its proper amount of CO2, and that inhibits wasteful lactic acid metabolism and stabilizes the nerves so that they can rest more efficiently and so on. But I think the general trend of the warming currently, the last hundred years or so, is being driven by the sun's normal cycle.
As far as it can be determined, there are not only the 11-year cycles, but probably much larger cycles. Several astronomers have been showing evidence that the solar constant has been increasing in recent decades enough to fully account for the planetary warming as far as that's been established. I saw from the presentation, I think it might have been part of Al Gore's presentation, when he got the Nobel Prize for this, that there were three main warming periods in the period 1905 to 1913 or 1914. Two of them did not coincide with CO2, necessarily.
The third one, which was one of the most recent, can be scientifically explained from satellite observations of decreased cloud cover. This decreased cloud cover, particularly over the tropics, allows solar radiation to enter and strike the Earth and therefore re-radiate. This was actually a physical warming attribute. Actually, throughout the history of known data, there is actually very little evidence to support actual global warming, but in fact, actual cooling in the last 17 years, the Earth has actually cooled. I know they've mentioned 2010, I think, as one of the warmest years on record.
And more evidence for global warming. But I've also seen evidence for Antarctic ice sheets increasing. I've seen polar bear species increasing in number, not decreasing. And what really worries me is the kind of mandate that the EPA would have on carbon and how carbon taxes, folks, carbon taxes are politically boundary-free. It doesn't matter how you vote or how you think politically, everyone is going to pay carbon taxes. And I would put out to you that this global warming would definitely conspire to increase worldwide revenue from global carbon taxation
and it would further worsen the plight of third world countries. Now, it's the third world countries that need energy production, whether it's from coal-fired stations or other carbon sources. And third world countries are going to be very much disadvantaged by this taxation. The first world, the industrialized nations, have already gone through their industrial growth from the benefit of coal, as an example. And I think this mandate is yet another mandate to keep the poor poor and to maintain the elitist position that I think people that are in big government
and big corporations actually have an exercise. So I'd encourage everyone to look at YouTube and to look at Lord Monckton's compelling evidence. He speaks before several government entities. He's not just out there on his own talking to the people in the church or the street corner. So I would encourage people to take a look at the evidence that he has because there's a large number of recognized scientists and they come from places like NOAA and other government agencies even that are saying the evidence is actually not there.
So I think there is another caller on the line here. So let's get this next caller before we carry on with this topic. Hi, caller. You're on the air? Hello. I have two things I wanted to ask about, then I want to get off the phone. Sure. Where are you from, caller, before I-- First one is about carbon sequestration. My understanding that what they do is if they're not going to cut their tree, that tree holds so much carbon and it can--
One of these companies that are polluting can buy that carbon and continue to pollute and say, "Oh, but I'm paying for this carbon to be held in this tree." And then my other thing that I wanted to talk about was airline travel. Everybody just went here or there or somewhere else. They got in an airplane and they circled around and they caused all this pollution, you know, all over the place. How many times did an airplane circle before it lands? And then do you remember when the--
The very people that attended the Paris Climate Conference talks came in private aircraft. And it's well known. There's plenty of published evidence here to show these big private commercial jets that were brought in carrying various dignitaries and leaders, et cetera, had landed on a private airfield in France, and that the whole thing there was an extremely extravagant and costly affair. And the people that want to tell you that you should be paying carbon taxes are the very people that are going to be collecting carbon taxes from you. So, again, think of alternatives, people.
Don't just go along with the mainstream ideology because if you don't have an alternative, there will be no change. So in terms of carbon sequestration and paying to have carbon offset, follow the money. That's all you've got to do is follow the money. So I don't know. Is there another caller on the air? Let's take this next caller and see where it's going. Caller, you're on the air. Where are you from? I'm here, Southern Humboldt, I guess you'll say. Anyhow, I was wondering if you knew anything about the MultiPure filter that's sold around here.
Pardon, can you say that again? The MultiPure? Oh, the MultiPure water filter? Yes. Dr. Peat, do you have any knowledge of the MultiPure water filter? No. Yeah, I think it's a fairly basic-- I think it's a carbon block filter. Yeah, I think it's-- It's supposed to be pretty good and colors a lot of everything. Yeah, I think it's rudimentary. The other thing is, on global warming, I don't know if it's the carbon or the planets just moving closer to the sun, but it does--I don't see how you can say that because the glaciers are withdrawing,
the ice is melting, and that the overall temperature hasn't been going up. I mean, I've heard some of this debate or discussion start back in the 1950s. And so I don't know. I've been paying a little attention to it. And it seems that the overall is getting warmer, which is actually beneficial for the people on the planet. Now, we have had a lot to do with it. Every war, every bomb dropped, all the fireplaces, all the electromagnetics in the air, it's all involved. Let me go on to say--
Yeah, well, the planet being more inhabitable for people. But let me go on to say this, that the EPA now has mandated a ban for 80% of wood burning stoves and boilers in seven U.S. states. So-- Yeah, Dr. Peat, are you aware of someone being told they couldn't burn wood in Eugene? We heard that on the news. It's in Oregon, yeah. Oh, yeah. Or I don't know, was it Eugene or was it somewhere else in Oregon? No, I heard it was in Eugene. Yeah, Eugene has it.
But for about 40 years, Eugene every summer was polluted to the point that the death rate from asthma patients peaked during the weeks that they were burning their grass fields. And-- Are they still doing that? It took really about 40 years. And what finally stopped that was a gigantic freeway pileup that killed some people who then started suing. And finally, the politicians gradually-- Well, the wood burning part of it, it's slightly different to me. And when you're talking about the carbon tax, it involves the oil and the coal--
Okay, so Dr. Peat, you're aware of what's going on there in Oregon. Yeah, almost everyone has stopped burning wood where it used to be very smoky. The mills would burn all of their trimmings and sawdust so that the timber industry was really the main source of wood burning pollution. But since they cut the forests down, there just isn't that much wood available for heating.
So I don't think that's as much of an issue as the absence of the forests because forests are a major climate stabilizing factor by absorbing and releasing water and reflecting the infrared and so on. I thought it was quite strange that the two most controversial or the two most demonized compounds that the EPA wanted to regulate heavily were CO2 and water vapor. And both of those are exhaled by everybody. I don't know. I won't say it's a conspiracy, but I'll say it sounds like a conspiracy.
I think there's a caller calling in here. Let's just see where this next one's going. Well, Dr. Peat, while we're waiting, I remember you telling me about a rain forest. I don't know if it was in the south of Mexico or somewhere else in South America, but you said that it had been cut down and then the weather changed and then it became a desert. Yeah, just in the last few decades, I saw some of that happening.
I used to travel on the train and first I would go through a countryside that had just been a few years before deforested and it was rolling green hills. Two or three years later, I would go through there and it was, there were canyons cut through the soil erosion 30 or 40 feet deep just in a few years. After much of southern Mexico, Oaxaca was deforested. The climate changed so much that they were no longer able to grow corn at every season. They could only get one corn crop per year rather than two or three.
And so the trees were actually bringing in the moisture? And stabilizing the temperature. In the summer, the area is cooled by the evaporation. If you don't have the forest, the temperature of the land increases very sharply in the summer, causing updrafts that create intense rainfall, thunderstorms, rather than a cool, steady, even temperature all year round from the slow evaporation from the trees. Good point. Okay, I just wanted to mention also that it's, and we talked a little bit about the United Nations. America is part of the founding group of countries that form the United Nations.
So it's now a United Nation policy and now in the US, the United Nations is dictating policy. I don't know how that can be constitutional. And now the cap and trade tax proposal, which is in President Obama, his EPA policy shot 40% of coal-fired power stations directly increasing energy costs to Americans. An example of skewed data sets providing the necessary means to implement this taxation, which will be unavoidable and have no effect on the target objective.
But which has a political advantage of decreasing funding from the majority, now Republican donors, which are largely energy corporations and they support coal. So is there a political agenda? I just want to put that out there. Again, it's an alternative show and the whole subject of global warming and the cap and trade and the taxation being mandated for every man, woman and child is kind of scary.
So people really need to think about what it is they're voting on and what they believe in and then look at the facts and the science to make the objective decision. OK, there's two callers on the air. So let's get these next caller. Hi, caller, where are you from? Hello. I'm from Madison, Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin. What's your question? My main question was, my girlfriend has really low cholesterol and she has Hashimoto's. And I was curious if gelatin might raise the cholesterol and what the mechanism is for dysbiosis and dyslipidemia.
OK, Dr. Peake, did you catch all that? I didn't get all of it, but Hashimoto's usually just means low thyroid function, which is more common in women because estrogen inhibits the thyroid and low thyroid then lets estrogen rise. And was the rest of the question about the blood count red cells? He said that his girlfriend had low cholesterol. And Hashimoto's. And Hashimoto's. Yeah, it's 138. Right. 138, yeah, and it's with a fasting, well, it's best to do actually a non-fasting cholesterol.
But for a non-fasting cholesterol, a good place for it to be at is around 175. Sometimes intestinal irritation can affect the liver so much that it doesn't make enough cholesterol. Oh, yeah, that was his next question, as he said. And how is that influenced by dysbiosis? The endotoxin poisons the liver and lets estrogen and other toxic metabolites increase, but the liver needs available glucose to produce adequate cholesterol. And eating fruits, especially orange juice, will often bring a person's cholesterol up to normal.
And if she replaces her starchy carbohydrates with the orange juice and has about a cup of grated raw carrot at night before she goes to bed, that should help with the dysbiosis by eliminating the starches and doing the carrot salad. Yes, I think that's the right approach. Okay, there's two more callers. Thank you for your call, caller. I was going to ask, like, she's kind of a picky eater. She doesn't get very hungry. Would gelatin help her with that? With her appetite? Well, gelatin's...
The cholesterol, like, if it would help her gut, then would it then help her cholesterol? Well, gelatin will be anti-inflammatory for the intestine, and in that way, it could help her liver be less irritated and thereby make more cholesterol. So, yeah, it's probably a good thing for everybody to take. Dr. Peat, do you have a direct answer for the gentleman in relation to gelatin consumption to increase cholesterol? Exactly what Sarah said. There you go. Okay, good. We've got two more callers on the air. Thanks for your call, caller.
Let's take this next caller, and where are you from? That's me. I'm from Briceland. Briceland. Okay, what's the question? Doesn't it seem it would be better in the developing nations to encourage more, as the United States should have also, converted to several alternative powers, geothermal, solar, you know, those kind of ideas, rather than just give more money to some corrupted corporations? No, I totally agree with you in California, and the latitudes that get sun exposure, solar energy is fantastic, and that should be a lot more available to people.
I think geothermal and water is also an option where there's plenty of resource for it. But it doesn't make the power companies enough money. What I would say is I think the whole EPA mandate is definitely avoidable with good up-to-date filtration. You know, the means exist to produce these coal-fired power stations that have zero emissions, and I think the objective analysis is that nuclear is unfortunately the only other option, and that's where we're going with what we've got going right now.
Well, you could also just burn the trash if you have a clean burning scrubber, or anything like you're talking about, for the coal plants. Of course, of course. I think it might as well just even burn trash. You could. And then come go into our landfills and mine them. Yeah, you could. Come and separate the metals and everything out.
I mean, Philadelphia had a pretty good suggestion by their science officer, Dr. Levy, who showed the whole process of how the separation, even of the materials, the metals would go out one way, the glass would go out another level. You know, a trash pylexus system would work pretty good, too, if you're going to have clean scrubbers. Dr. Peat? Okay, well, thanks. You're welcome. Dr. Peat? Thank you for your call. Composting is really a viable source of heat, methane production, but just heat directly from the compost.
Because I have read a couple of large municipal landfills are starting to do this with methane as a viable byproduct of composting all of the household refuse. And Straus Creamery makes electricity from the methane from their cows. There you go. All right, we have another caller on. Let's take this next call. Where are you from? My name is Andy Caffrey. I'm in Garberville. In Garberville. What's your call, caller? Well, you know, organisms only evolve tolerances to circumstances that their species evolve through.
And when I was in high school, I studied intertidal marine biology, and we would measure the temperature, salinity, and pH in tide pools every hour and then go out in the ocean and measure the same thing. And what we found is that there's very little change in the course of a day and as the tide withdraws out in the open ocean. But there's much more of a change in those things in the tide pools. So the creatures that evolve in the tide pools are ureothermal and urehaline, which means wide tolerance.
And the creatures that evolve in the ocean are stenohaline or stenothermal. So we now know that for the last 2.1 million years, the range of CO2 has been between 170 and 290 parts per million, and we're at 400. So I hear you making a generalized case about CO2 in plants, but you have to literally look at every species and every ecosystem, and you have to answer the question, how can all these ecosystems that evolved in that range tolerate 400 parts per million?
And also you have to look at what's happening with West Antarctica, where its collapse is now unstoppable, and that's probably because it has gotten up to 400 parts per million, and now we're going to face 20 feet of sea level increase this century, and that's unstoppable. How can anybody say global warming is good? It's not going to happen. What you need to do is you need to look at the alternative validated science from Lord Moulton.
You go ahead and do that, and I think you'll find some more objective answers that unfortunately I can't give you because I'm not a scientist on that subject, but I can point you to that person who totally is. Okay, we have another caller on the air. What's your question and where are you from? I am from Calgary, Alberta, and I'm wondering why people following the McDougall program, who eat tons of starch and vegetables, are able to reverse heart disease, lose weight, that kind of thing. Okay, how do you know this? What's the evidence for it?
Oh, well, I guess it was on the doctor's website. His name is Dr. John McDougall. And he's in California, right? I'm not sure where he is, actually. I think I've had a client who had seen McDougall. What's your objective analysis of a starchy carbohydrate-rich diet curing heart disease? I've talked to some of his patients, and I'm sure they aren't getting enough protein. Okay, that would be a very subjective analysis. Okay, so if we don't have too much more to add to that, I'm afraid we'll probably have to stop right there.
That's okay. Thank you so much. Okay, well, thank you for listening, and thank you for your call. Okay, yeah, so we've got here. Okay. Okay, so I think we probably should leave that for tonight. It's 5 to 8, and I want to make sure that people get the directions necessary to find your website, Dr. Peat. So thanks so much for joining us. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Dr. Peat. Okay, so for those people who have listened to tonight's show, I know sometimes the subjects are controversial. I'm glad they're controversial, I guess people think.
And those people that really care about any of it can always find an objective analysis from scientific research. So I'd always encourage people to look at the science. Now, like I said about global warming, there are 40 points of Al Gore's book that have been refuted in England, and they're not allowed now to be published in the curricula that was proposed for education of children concerning this part of geography. Now, Lord Monckton, again, not just because he's a lord and he speaks with a posh English accent, that doesn't make him…
Any better than those people out on the corners. Any better than people out on the corners. Street corners. But he has spent his life studying this, and he has drawn together eminent scientists that are not lords, they're just science people. They're just scientists, that's all they do is science work. And they're very objective in science. There's no political agenda, there's no financial agenda. That's why science for itself is a fairly pure and altruistic subject. So Lord Monckton is someone who you can look at on YouTube and… How do you spell Monckton? Say again?
How do you spell his name? It's M-O-N-C-K-T-O-N. He's the Viscount of Brentley in England. But anyway, he's very well educated, and his arguments for it are equally and oppositely, just like a positive and negative… Two positive electrons repel each other, or two magnet ends repel each other. He provides the same evidence to push the argument the other way. So that was the first thing. And then, for those of you who have called in, thanks so much for taking the time to listen and contribute.
We will be doing the same show the third Friday of next month. I just want to let people know that the website that we've had, which has been woefully outdated, I did it in 2001 with Adobe Page Mill on an old computer, and it hasn't changed up until tomorrow. So tomorrow, the new website, westernbotanicalmedicine.com, has all of these interviews on it. There's 57 radio interviews that have been edited and will be available free to download for anybody who wants to take the time to look at it.
I would encourage you to go and do that, not because I need hits on the website, because we come up first time anyway when you type in "Western Botanical Medicine," not looking for that. Just want to make sure that people know all these interviews with Dr. Peat have been recorded and are freely available. So thanks so much for joining us, and we'll be here same time next month, third Friday of the month. And for those of you who want to look at Dr. Ray Peat's website, it's www.raypeat.com, and that's R-A-Y-P-E-A-T.
And he has a whole range of fully referenced scientific journals that are not selling anything. And time and time again, what he's said has been borne out slowly but surely in the mainstream, as the culture recognizes this change that's inevitable. So thanks so much for listening. Until next month, good night. Good night. [Music] Support for KMUD comes from Inn of the Lost Coast and Shelter Cove, with fireplace, spa, and sauna suites overlooking the ocean and views of the migrating California gray whales. Fish Tank Espresso and Delgada Pizza and Bakery are open daily.
More information available at 986-7521 or online at innofthelostcoast.com. [Music] And support for KMUD comes from SolarWinds Northern Lights, a licensed, insured, bonded contractor specializing in the design, installation, maintenance, and troubleshooting of battery-based and grid-tied solar electric systems. Also, complete electrical services for homes, homesteads, and agriculture. More information is available from Chris at 498-2804 or online at solarwindsnorthernlights.com. [Music] It is 8 o'clock. This is Redwood Community Radio, KMUD Garboville. KMUE Eureka! KMUE Eureka!