Sorry I'm back so late, but that 2-day vacation was nice.;-) If I ever had reason to suspect I might have a malignant growth, I would never take a mammogram, since mammograms themselves have been contributors to breast cancers. Instead, I would get thermography, which is every bit as good at DIAGNOSING problems, which still require followup with mri's or x-rays. It's what happens after the tentative diagnosis that determines the outcome.
That's how I feel about taking iodine. Clean out the receptors with as large dose of iodine as needed (within detox tolerances), then drop back to a maintenance dose.-, probably about 12.5 mg.But I do agree that some deficiencies are great enough to warrant supplementation, preferably just until it is cleared up. E.g. I took supplements after chemo but I don't need them now.
Last edited by Paysan; 08-06-2012 at 02:46 PM.
Grizz, I hope you realize that flooding the thyroid with iodine during a nuclear emergency is limited to about 3 days (provided the emergency isn't ongoing ) is far different from megadosing iodine for weeks and months. FWIW, Canadians could not purchase those mega doses when Fukushima first happened. Still can't, AFAIK.
If the conclusion you come to from that document is that the 13.8mg figure is correct, I'll just assume we speak different languages. It seems pretty scathing of Abraham's/Brownstein's assumptions to me.
I do. Doctors are people, and when frustrated by patients that they have been unable to help, are apt to blurt out inappropriate responses. It tends to empty their examining room faster.Seriously, does anyone really believe that any doctor would say in so many words, "Learn to live with your breasts or cut them off"? ...
Last edited by Paysan; 08-06-2012 at 02:44 PM.
But here's the kicker - "As the Japanese transitioned from a traditional to a Westernized diet, beginning around the 1950's , consumption of certain seaweed species declined while others increased. A decrease in kombu consumption (844 to 685 g/year per household) and an increase in wakame consumption (727 to 1234 g/year per household) can be seen between the years of 1963 and 1973 . Consumption of kombu per Japanese household dropped further to 450 g in 2006 (elders ate up to four times more than those under the age of 29. "
So, depending when that estimate first surfaced, depending on theirage and the availability of seaweeds especially kombu, the original estimates may very well have been correct AT THE TIME. Current figures are only estimates and based entirely on averages. So, apparently, you can select any figure between 3.0 and 13.8 , and for some parts of the Japanese population, you'd be correct.