IN 1992-1993, approximately 2,900 Dutch military personnel participated in the peacekeeping operation, United Nations Transitional Authority for Cambodia (UNTAC), for 6 mo. Following their return to the Netherlands, some of these personnel complained of persistent fatigue, inability to concentrate, and memory loss--symptoms virtually identical to those in Gulf War-related illnesses. (1,2) From the time of the American Civil War, unexplained symptoms in military personnel have been the subject of considerable interest. (3,4) Fatigue, headache, difficulty concentrating, shortness of breath, diarrhea, and muscle/joint pains have been prominent complaints. Several somatic hypotheses, among which is exposure to toxic substances, have been suggested as possible explanations for these various war syndromes. (4)

Gulf War-related illness has been defined in the context of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) Syndrome. (5,6) MCS Syndrome was initially described by Randolph more than 40 yr ago, (7) but its existence remains controversial. According to a recent consensus among the proponents of MCS Syndrome, it is a chronic condition with symptoms in multiple organ systems. The symptoms occur in response to low levels of exposure to multiple unrelated chemicals, and they improve or resolve when the incitants are removed. (8)

According to Miller, (9) a 2-step process occurs in MCS Syndrome: (1) an initial exposure, (2) followed by a loss of tolerance for formerly well-tolerated substances. An initial exposure can be a one-time, intermittent, or continuous exposure to pesticides or solvents. Miller (9) suggested that the phrase "toxicant-induced loss of tolerance" more fully describes the process, whereas chemical sensitivity may be its consequence.

In the present study, we retrospectively evaluated self-reported chemical exposures in symptomatic Dutch Cambodia veterans before, during, and after the UNTAC mission. A postal questionnaire was used to determine whether the veterans fulfilled the MCS Syndrome criteria. We then compared their results with a well-matched control group of healthy Dutch Cambodia veterans. Matching criteria were: sex; age; military branch and rank during UNTAC; and, if known, geographical area of current residence in The Netherlands.

Method

Patients. This study of MCS Syndrome in symptomatic Cambodia veterans was part of a follow-up study conducted 18 mo after an initial assessment. In the initial assessment, (1) a postal questionnaire was sent to all Dutch Cambodia veterans whose addresses could be retrieved from the database of the Ministry of Defense (n = 2,548 [97.4% of the entire Dutch Cambodia veteran population]). The survey contained questions about severity of fatigue (i.e., the Checklist of Individual Strength [CIS] (10) was incorporated) and other self-reported symptoms, but contained no questions specifically about MCS Syndrome. A total of 1,721 (68%) male veterans responded to the questionnaire. Details of this study, in which the prevalence of symptoms was investigated, are provided elsewhere. (1)

Eighteen months after the initial assessment, a follow-up questionnaire was sent regarding severity of fatigue (i.e., the CIS), self-reported improvement, and self-efficacy, to a subgroup of the initial study subjects: 354 veterans who (a) had given permission for follow-up and (b) met our case definition for symptoms in Cambodia veterans (i.e., a score of [greater than or equal to] 37 on the fatigue severity subscale of the CIS at initial assessment). To ensure that borderline cases were identified, veterans who had sub-threshold scores (i.e., CIS fatigue severity score [greater than or equal to] 32 and < 37) at initial assessment were also provided with a follow-up questionnaire. (2) However, it appeared that, 18 mo after initial assessment, only 105 Cambodia veterans had CIS scores that met our case definition. These subjects did not differ in age, education, military rank, or initial fatigue severity from the 249 veterans who did not fulfill the case definition after 18 mo had elapsed. (2)

We invited the abovementioned 105 veterans, by telephone, to participate in an individual assessment program at our outpatient clinic. The assessment program comprised psychological interviews; neurological interviews; questionnaires about depression, physical activity, self-esteem, and personality disorders; general and neurological physical examinations; and immunological and microbiological laboratory investigations. Twenty-four veterans were unwilling or unable to attend our clinic; therefore, 81 veterans participated in the study. For the present study, these 81 veterans received an additional questionnaire regarding toxic exposures to organic solvents or insecticides during work tasks and in their living areas. Seventy-seven persons completed the questionnaire, of which only male (n = 76) symptomatic veterans were included in our analyses. Although an additional 4 persons participated in the individual assessment program, they were not willing to complete the questionnaire with respect to toxic exposures, citing its length and the detailed nature of the questions. With respect to the 76 male veterans who participated in our study and the 29 who did not participate, there were no differences in demographics (e.g., age, education, military rank, initial fatigue score).

In three easy steps, you can control unruly new growth and keep your hair looking straight until the next relaxer treatment. New Soft & Beautiful Extend-A-Perm offers a non-chemical way to manage new growth and reduce breakage between relaxing treatments--no matter what relaxer you use--leaving you with hair that's healthy, soft and beautiful.

Whether or not gas will be employed in future wars is a matter of conjecture. But the effect is so deadly to the unprepared that we can never afford to neglect the question.--General John J. Pershing (1)

CHEMICAL WEAPONS were first used in May 1915 during World War I when the Germans released chlorine gas into the wind during the Battle of Ypres in France. (2) By the time hostilities ceased, new agents such as cyanide, phosgene, and mustard gas had been used, killing thousands of soldiers and injuring many more. The number of casualties was small compared to total casualties, but chemical weapons had played a profoundly unpleasant role.

Shortly after the war, the Geneva Protocol condemned chemical warfare. Unfortunately, the treaty banned only the first use of the weapon, but retaliation in kind was acceptable. However, the protocol lacked enforcement and verification provisions. Instead, it relied on a signatory's integrity, a virtue that was virtually nonexistent.

Since World War I, chemical warfare has occurred during the 1935 Italian-Ethiopian War, the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, and Saddam Hussein's attacks on the Kurds from 1987 to 1988. For each confirmed use, there have been many alleged cases of chemical-weapons use (for example, by Japan in China during the 1930s, by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan during 1992, and in the Yemeni civil war during the 1960s).

Countries (or individuals) seeking a weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD) capability are attracted to chemical weapons because they are inexpensive to produce and do not require an extensive technological infrastructure such as that necessary to create nuclear weapons. Currently, about 25 nations have or might be developing a chemical-warfare capability. (3)

The UN-sanctioned 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) comprehensively addressed these concerns and established a legally binding global standard for state-parties to--

* Never use chemical weapons and not retaliate for their first use by an enemy.

* Declare in writing their chemical-weapons stockpiles, production facilities, relevant chemical-industry facilities, and other weapons-related information.

* Never develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, transfer, or retain chemical weapons or help anyone to do so.

* Destroy chemical-weapons production facilities and the munitions themselves by April 2007. (4)

The treaty went into effect in April 1997. So far, 151 state-parties have ratified it. State-parties include countries with large chemical industries (the United States, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands) and major regional powers (China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Iran). After many years of noncompliance, Libya became a signatory state on 6 January 2004. Key nonsignatories include North Korea, and Syria, which "possess or are actively pursuing" chemical-warfare capabilities. (5) The United States, Russia, India, and South Korea have declared chemical-weapons stockpiles totaling 69,863 metric tons and 8.4 million munitions and containers. (6) Eleven state-parties began dismantling former chemical-weapons production facilities and converting them to peaceful purposes.

American CWC critics argue that complying with the CWC treaty is prohibitively expensive and leaves America exposed to rogue states that either will not accede to the treaty or will become clandestine violators. Critics feel the United States will be unable to deter chemical-weapons use or retaliate proportionally, making U.S. forces vulnerable to chemical attack. They also contend the obligatory destruction of the U.S. chemical-warfare capability will lead to a decrease in chemical-defense funding and a lowering of the U.S. nuclear threshold.

Does the absence of a chemical-warfare tactical capability hurt the U.S. military? Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili testified in Congress that the treaty is "clearly in our national interest. [Operation] Desert Storm proved that retaliation in kind isn't required to deter chemical warfare use.... The U.S. military's ability to deter chemical warfare in a post-chemical warfare world will be predicated upon both a robust chemical-warfare defense capability, and the ability to rapidly bring to bear superior, overwhelming military force in retaliation against a chemical attack." (7) General Wesley Clark stated that "from a military perspective, the CWC is clearly in our national interest.... Its nonproliferation aspects will retard the spread of chemical warfare, thereby reducing the probability that U.S. forces may encounter chemical warfare in a regional conflict." (8)

When war has occurred, U.S. adversaries have had little doubt that chemical-weapons use or the threat of their use would result in a massive, focused, disproportionate response. America's extensive, sophisticated, conventional capabilities (smart bombs, complete air superiority, and so on) are more than adequate to provide this blitzkrieg. Any use of nuclear weapons would only weaken the international nuclear arms control structure and significantly reduce the limited supply.

Sun Chemical will build an advanced printing ink production facility near Moscow to replace its current plant there. The planned Russian production unit will incorporate the latest production technology and permit a higher output of high-quality color inks for sheet-fed, flexo and gravure printing for packaging, the company says. It also will include a laboratory for printing ink application research and development. The Russian location will house the company's entire Russian management and administrative work force, including an expanded sales and distribution team. It also will incorporate ink mixing stations for selected customers.

Chemical retaliatory plans during World War II called for using mustard gas (H) and phosgene (CG) aerial bombs (the most successful chemical agents used during World War I). Though scientists had discovered many new agents, these agents were generally extensions of the knowledge gained during World War I. For example, the British "secret weapon" of the time was high-altitude, aerial-spray attacks using runcol (HT), a mustard gas variant with a 60:40 mixture of H and O mustard (T). A revolution in chemical warfare was dependent on German development of nerve agents.

In 1936, at the German Leverkusen pesticides laboratory of I. G. Farben, Dr. Gerhard Schrader discovered tabun (GA). (1) The military utility of Schrader's discovery became clear when a single drop on a laboratory bench produced enough vapor to sicken him and a coworker. After performing a demonstration for the chemical warfare section, German army officials provided Dr. Schrader a laboratory at Wuppertal-Elberfeld in the Ruhr Valley to continue his work.

German scientists went on to discover sarin (GB), soman (GD), ethyl satin (GE), and cyclohexyl sarin (GF). In 1939, GA was manufactured in a pilot plant at Munster-Lager. By 1942, there was also a production plant in Dyerfurth-am-Oder and another plant under construction.

The Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) may have known of the German interest in nerve agents as early as 1941. The United States investigated similar compounds, notably phosphorus (III) fluoride diisopropylflurophosphate (PF3), but concluded that they were only usable as eye irritants. In 1943, the British interrogated a German chemist who had firsthand knowledge of sarin. The Germans wrongly interpreted British censorship of pesticide research as an indication that the Allies were aware of the nerve agents. However, the secret of German nerve-agent research was not apparent until the Allies began to overtake German chemical dumps in April 1945. (2)

The Chemical Corps continued to study nerve agents and create more analogs after World War II. A national effort to create an arsenal with nerve agents did not receive priority until the Stevenson Ad Hoc Committee and the Korean War. Another impetus was the decision by the Air Force to be completely capable with chemical and biological weapons by 1954.

GA: The Interim Nerve Agent

Chemical warfare plans for the European theater depended on a chemical arsenal located in England. Within 24 hours, Army Air Force units could conduct attacks on tactical and strategic targets. Although these plans initially called for large-scale strategic employment, by September 1944 the Allies had scaled back plans to include only immediate tactical support for the Normandy invasion. (3)

The retaliatory plans for the Pacific theater were more problematic. Despite requests from the CWS in the mid-Pacific, appropriate stocks were not located closer than the California coast. This meant a retaliatory response time of 30 to 60 days. More importantly, plans for chemical retaliation against Japan called for quantities of chemical weapons that were not available. A survey of the zone of interior (Asiatic-Pacific and European-Mediterranean theaters) showed that only 855,000 persistent and 271,000 nonpersistent bombs were available. The retaliatory requirements against Japan called for 5,181,000 persistent bombs and 776,000 nonpersistent bombs. The CWS believed that the German arsenal could fill the gap and embarked on a crash program to evaluate the utility of these weapons.

The United States had captured 23,000 tons of GA in aerial bombs and 6,000 tons in 10.5-centimeter projectiles. The Army Air Force could deliver the aerial bombs without modification, but the 10.5-centimeter projectiles were too wide for Army 105-millimeter artillery. The CWS sent 3,000 tons of aerial bombs and 5,000 tons of projectiles to Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, for further evaluation.

The German ordinance was punched and drained at Edgewood Arsenal to evaluate GA in the 4.2-inch mortar rounds and the M70 (E46) aerial bomb. Field trials showed that standard bursters were too small to disseminate GA due to the low volatility of the agent. Only 10 to 20 percent of the agent was dispensed as aerosol or vapor. Furthermore, the CWS initially believed that the [LCt.sub.50] (median lethal dosage) of GA was about 800 milligram-minute per cubic meter (mg-min/[m.sup.3]). The conclusion was that GA was useful for harassment but was not suitable for chemical retaliation. (4)

During the Cold War (1950s), the British believed that the Soviet Union had standardized the use of GA. The United States estimated the Soviet stockpile at about 18,000 metric tons of GA in 1952, in addition to about 120,000 tons of older chemical munitions. The implications that Germany's nerve-agent production facilities and scientists had fallen into Soviet hands at the end of World War II was not lost on anyone. (5)

Replying to a request from the Commander in Chief of the Far East for a chemical capability by 7 June 1952. the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that it would provide World War II vintage chemical weapons within six months and newer chemical weapons (such as nerve agents) after 1954. (6) When the Far East Air Force requested guidance on chemical employment against North Korea in January 1953, the discussion was exclusively on using World War II weapons containing CG, cyanogen chloride (CK) (a blood agent), and mustard gas, with particular interest in CK to penetrate protective masks.

Complying with a request from the Environmental Protection Agency, the companies that make perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) have agreed to work toward ending production of the chemical worldwide by 2015. The agency requested the voluntary phaseout in late January, days before the majority of the scientists on one of its advisory boards deemed PFOA a "likely carcinogen."

All eight manufacturers have also agreed to cut PFOA emissions and use in commercial products by 95 percent within 5 years, the EPA announced on March 2.

PFOA is used to make the nonstick coatings on microwave popcorn bags, cookware, fabrics, and other goods. The chemical, which contaminates water, air, and wildlife, is ubiquitous in people's blood (SN: 11/26/05, p. 341), but scientists aren't sure how it gets into the bloodstream.

DuPont of Wilmington, Del., the sole U.S.-based manufacturer and the first to sign on to the phaseout program, agreed last December to pay a fine of $16.5 million to settle charges (SN: 7/31/04, p. 78) that it withheld data on releases of PFOA and their effects on people.

As in the rest of this series "devoted to helping the reader obtain general information about a wide variety of topics in [a broadly defined] chemical physics," the editors sought comprehensive analysis of each individual subject, while encouraging the expression of individual points of view. In this volume, they present six papers covering the following topics: polyelectrolyte dynamics, hydrodynamics and slip at the liquids-solid interface, the structure of ionic liquids and ionic liquid compounds, chemical reactions at very high pressure, classical description of nonadiabatic quantum dynamics, and non-Born-Oppenheimer variational calculations of atoms and molecules with explicitly correlated Gaussian basis functions.

Chemical-mechanical planarization--integration, technology and reliability; proceedings.

Symposium on Chemical-Mechanical Planarization; Integration, Technology and Reliability.

In these proceedings of the symposium of March 2005, participants describe their work in polishing, including the planarization process and its applications, including copper chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) and ceria slurries, consumables such as CMP pads and slurries, CMP equipment and metrology, CMP modeling and simulation, Invited paper topics include the relationship of CMP wafer nanotopography to groovescale slurry transport, the abrasive contribution to CMP friction, and an investigation on an abrasive-free copper chemical mechanical planarization.

An ozone machine is one of the most aggressively marketed types of air purifiers. The supposed benefits of using it are:

1) It doesn't require a fan to operate, so it is silent.

2) It produces ozone that actively searches for any pollutants and then destroys them.

3) Ozone air purifiers can fight dust, allergens, bacteria, gases, odors ... simply everything that lowers the quality of the air we breathe.

Until now we've had to rely on multi-filter systems and even then we often felt disappointed. Everything has changed with the coming of an ozone machine – an ultimate solution to all the air purifying problems! Does it sound interesting?

Scam warning!

It sure does. The only problem is that a huge percentage of the information about ozone air purifiers isn't true. Not exaggerated, not overenthusiastic – just plainly wrong. Sadly, ozone machine manufacturers prey on misinformed and trusting consumers.

That is bad enough, but the real problem is that an ozone purifier is often a harmful or even life-threatening device that emits a toxic gas into the air we breathe.

What is ozone and what does it do?

Basically, ozone is a highly reactive form of oxygen. It naturally exists in the upper layers of Earth's atmosphere where it does an excellent job of keeping the deadly UV rays away. It doesn't however, exist naturally near the planet's surface, though small quantities of ozone are created during lighting strikes and near high-voltage electrical devices.

But what's so wrong with producing ozone? Since ozone is such a highly reactive particle, it oxidizes almost everything it touches. Because of this quality it is very useful for eliminating unpleasant odors, replacing them with its own, distinctive smell.

Unfortunately, it can go on to harm living creatures – not only bacteria or germs, as it is claimed, but all living tissue. Since it oxidizes, or incinerates, unpleasant odors and other particles, it is obvious that it can also oxidize all life forms, not just select ones.

What fans of ozone technology don't tell us is how the ozone knows to strike bacteria only and not our lungs! Obviously, since it's a machine, it can't make these kinds of distinctions.

An ozone purifier run at low output does virtually nothing. However if you try to increase the ozone production level, you will endanger your throat and lungs.

Good ozone/bad ozone:

Because none of the above information is secret, many ozone machine advertisements employ another strategy: they agree with most of the arguments, but they try to convince us that the detriments are a result of “bad ozone” while their products create “good ozone”. The problem is that the ozone they produce is basically the same as every other kind of ozone – O3 is a very basic particle and there is nothing you can really do to change its basic chemical properties. Either an ozone air purifier produces highly reactive (dangerous) ozone or it produces some less reactive gas (safe, but useless). The only less reactive and really safe version of ozone is O2 – the oxygen we breath all the time.

Think about this: any property you come across is likely to be a used good. Real estate investment is like a garage sale; only instead of exchanging old t-shirts and record players, you’re buying and selling the actual garage, the High Victorian, the Colonial.

You will never find the perfect house, but you may certainly find the perfect house for you. For these reasons, it is absolutely essential that your investments are inspected thoroughly by a licensed professional. The sale of property is always negotiable, and a proper third-party inspection is a tenant of the deal that you’ll want to remain always firm upon. Put it in writing, and get it signed. Leave nothing to chance.

Here are a few things to consider:

If there is wood in or on the property, you may need a separate termite and pest inspection of the premises. General home inspections focus primarily on structural and mechanical features; they don’t typically check for bugs. Here again is an opportunity to get to know your inspector. Termites, carpenter ants, mice and other bugs can severely weaken walls, floors, attics and shelving. They can chew through wiring and cause electrical problems.

Professional inspectors will likely begin at the foundation, searching for major cracks, level ground, and/or evidence of water damage (i.e. water stains, mold, mildew, and mineral deposits). Some inspectors will also check for the presence of radon gas concentrations.

The house is examined as a structural whole; angles and joints and frames must meet at proper locations to ensure a solid foundation. Plumbing and electrical systems are inspected for damage, wear, and to be certain they conform to industry specifications. Pipes are checked for leaks, rust, lead, and other chemicals. In addition, some inspectors measure flow-rate and water pressure.

It is important to have properly functioning electrical systems. Be weary of faulty wiring, uncovered switches or receptacles, incorrect grounds, inadequate or malfunctioning circuit breakers, or poor-quality GFCI trips (those tiny red buttons in the middle of your outlets, which act as miniature circuit breakers).

Air conditioning and heating systems will be checked for duct leaks, the condition of filters, and adequate capacity and flow. It is also important to ensure that the thermostat is in proper working order.

Attics are checked for proper framing and strength, noting any water leaks or obvious damage. The roof is inspected for tears or holes, loose tiles, weaknesses, and to be certain that vent pipes are sealed properly.

Appliances (i.e. stove and water heater) must comply with standards. If there is a propane or wood-burning stove, these must be checked for physical integrity and proper function.

Carpets should not show signs of inappropriate wear or water damage. All faucets must be tested for leaks.

In addition to these major aspects, your inspector may check a variety of other systems. You’ll receive a detailed report of his or her findings, and as the buyer you may use these defective items as bargaining chips during the negotiation phase. As a seller, this professional inspection may be done before listing, so that problem areas can be given attention before the property reaches the market.

Home inspection can be costly, but a few hundred dollars may well save thousands in the long-run, and there’s something to be said about peace-of-mind.

Calcium could be the key nutrient needed to help you lose weight, according to a growing consensus of new research examining the mineral. Calcium not only helps with hypertension, the research shows: it also appears to support healthy physiology in a way that results in the loss of excess body fat.

But there's a major misconception with all this talk about calcium: people think that if calcium helps them lose weight, then drinking cow's milk or eating cheese pizza is the way to go about getting that calcium, and that's just plain bad thinking. Cow's milk is associated with all sorts of chronic stagnation disorders such as asthma, constipation and sinus infections. And cheese, for its part, is extremely high in both saturated fat and sodium.

There are far better ways to get the calcium you need to support a weight loss effort, and nutritional supplements offer the answer. Coral calcium supplements offer a convenient way to take regular doses of the mineral, and plants like broccoli are naturally loaded with precisely the form of calcium your body wants. Quinoa, a supergrain, is also very high in calcium while containing a complete protein. Whole food meal replacement powders like The Ultimate Meal are also high in calcium.

Definitely get your calcium, even if you're not trying to lose weight, but don't make the common mistake in thinking that calcium = milk. That's just a marketing myth promoted by the dairy industry. Coral calcium supplements are far better for you, and plant-based calcium is better yet. Work to get your calcium from superfoods, whole foods, vegetables and supergrains, not from bovine juice. And, of course, to make sure you don't lose the calcium you already have, never drink soft drinks, which have been proven to strip calcium right from your bones.

Well, first off, I want to applaud you for remaining skeptical of the health claims described in the book, "The Calcium Factor," not because of whether or not they are true, but because the person authoring the book has a significant financial interest in your purchasing calcium.

As you know, I never have a financial interest in the products that I recommend or review on this website. And, I think it is a great conflict of interest for anyone to both write about a nutritional supplement and sell that same nutritional supplement. It doesn't mean that they're wrong. It just means that their information must be taken in context.

I encourage you and other readers to live day-to-day with that kind of skepticism. We should all be skeptics of people who are trying to sell us products, especially if it's drugs or herbs or vitamins, because anything can have an element of hype or exaggeration to it. Just because someone is offering something that seems to be a natural vitamin or mineral supplement doesn't mean it's not being over-hyped.

In fact, there are many hucksters and con artists in the nutritional supplement industry, just as there are in the pharmaceutical industry. So, my position has never been that all nutritional supplements are good and that all pharmaceuticals are bad. It's just that if you're looking for what's truly healthy you're only going to find them from the natural world and never from the world of manufactured, synthesized drugs.

The category of nutritional supplements is definitely where you're going to find those supplemental products that enhance health rather than harming your health in the way that patent medications do. But, getting back to the question of calcium and more specifically, coral calcium, the fact is that Bob Barefoot is very much right about almost everything he says about calcium, but only for those people who are calcium deficient. In other words, the healing powers of calcium are indeed miraculous if you don't have enough calcium, because calcium is so intimately involved in human physiology that a lack of calcium has terrible systemic effects.

Most people tend to think of calcium as only having one purpose, and that is supporting bone health. And certainly, calcium is critical for having good bone density, but calcium is also critical for your nervous system and nerve function, which makes it essential for cardiovascular health. In other words, if you don't have enough calcium, your heart cannot contract in the way it is supposed to. Your brain will not function in as healthy a manner as it could if you had plenty of calcium. Your acid-alkaline balance may be disrupted without calcium. Your immune system function may be off. And certainly, your skeletal system is going to be affected, as well.

There are many systems in the body that need calcium. And, to a person who is calcium deficient, the addition of supplementary calcium can indeed seem quite miraculous. So, there's nothing incorrect about stating that calcium is a miraculous supplement. In fact, I think the human body is a living, breathing miracle all by itself. And the way that nature works is a miracle. So, there is nothing incorrect about using the term "miraculous" to describe the healing effects of some nutritional supplements.

The question becomes: How many people are calcium deficient? That is truly the relevant question in here, because if most of the population had sufficient quantities of calcium, then the claims made by Bob Barefoot on the benefits of calcium might be considered to be exaggerated. On the other hand, if the population were largely calcium deficient, then the claims describing the health benefits of calcium would have much broader application, and would be considered far more accurate.

So again, the question comes down to: "What is the incidence of calcium deficiency in the population?" And, this is where you're going to find tremendous disagreement depending on who you talk to. In my own opinion, calcium deficiency is chronic and widespread. I think most Americans and most people in the civilized world who consume processed foods or manufactured foods do exhibit a calcium deficiency.

But, understand that conventionally trained doctors, physicians and even dieticians would strongly disagree with that, because they're going off of Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) numbers. And, they're saying that if a person meets the recommended daily allowance (RDA) requirements for vitamins and minerals, then that's really all they need. In contrast, most nutritionists and people from the wellness world would say that the USRDA numbers are really just the minimum requirements needed to avoid nutritional deficiencies that cause diseases. They are not in any way descriptive of the optimum levels of nutrition for a human being.

Essentially, the whole argument about the benefits of calcium comes down to your position on the RDA numbers, or in other words, what you think is the recommended daily allowance or requirement of calcium in an adult human being. My own position, as I've stated, is that most of the population is chronically deficient in calcium.

It's difficult to get sufficient calcium from a balanced diet
There are quite a few other related issues to this question beyond just whether or not Bob Barefoot is telling the truth about coral calcium. The biggest question, I think, is "Can people get sufficient quantities of usable calcium from the typical diet?" Now this is a favorite myth of conventional medicine, which is to say that all you need to have adequate nutrition is to eat three balanced meals a day, and you'll get all the vitamins and minerals you need. You don't need any supplementation whatsoever.

That's a common myth promoted by people in conventional medicine who really don't have the education or the understanding in nutrition that we would now consider to be authoritative. There have been significant advances in the understanding of nutrition over the last couple of decades. And yet, medical schools are still teaching nutrition as it was taught in the 1960s.

So, conventionally trained medical professionals are not going to understand this point, and most likely, they're going to argue with you if you present them with this information because they're not only wrong, but they also operate under the misimpression that they are right. The point I'm trying to make here is that based on my own calculations of the nutritional makeup of typical American food, the average person would have to consume 10,000 calories a day just to meet the minimum USRDA requirements for all the vitamins and minerals that are tracked by the USRDA chart.

10,000 calories a day is five times the food intake that an average adult human being should be consuming. In other words, you would have to eat ravenously -- you would have to engage in non-stop, belly-splitting consumption. You'd be chewing food constantly just to get the essential vitamins and minerals into your diet that you're supposed to get to avoid chronic disease.

And yet, at the same time, you'd be getting 10,000 calories, which is five times the calories you need, meaning that you'd be packing on pounds at the rate of around two pounds of body fat per day.

So, obviously this is not a strategy for being healthy. Yes, you would get all the vitamins and minerals you need, but you'd be spending five times as much on food and you'd be adding two pounds of body fat a day, unless you were engaged in some superhuman cardiovascular exercise program. Remember, even a guy like Lance Armstrong only burns about 5000 calories a day during the competition. So, to burn 10,000 calories a day is virtually impossible.

Supplementation is the answer for nutrition
What does this all mean? It means you have to supplement if you're going to be healthy, and meet the minimum requirements for vitamins and minerals. So, what I'm saying is that the average American must take nutritional supplements if they want to prevent chronic disease, or even meet the basic minimum requirements for nutrient intake.

If you want to exceed those requirements and actually have superior health (that is health that goes beyond just preventing disease and actually taps into the mental and physical performance potential of the human being), then you will need to supplement at very high levels. You would need to supplement with superfoods or whole food supplements. And, the person asking this question mentioned Juice Plus or the Alive food supplements. These are excellent supplements.

Don't get your calcium from cows
But, specifically, when it comes to calcium, you need to supplement it if you're going to get adequate supplies of calcium in your system. And, here is where most people go wrong. They think the best source of calcium is cows' milk. Why do they think that? Because that's the message that the dairy industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over many, many years to inject into peoples' minds. The public relations efforts and the advertising has paid off, people now mistakenly believe that cows' milk is a great source of calcium.

Well, it simply isn't a great source of calcium. In fact, it's not even what I would consider a mediocre source of calcium. Why is that? First off, note that spirulina has far more calcium than milk on an ounce per ounce basis. So, if you really want to get some calcium into your system, supplement with spirulina. Remember, spirulina is harvested from the ocean. It has absorbed not only the macro minerals like calcium and magnesium, but also the trace minerals from the ocean waters. When you consume spirulina, you are automatically getting these minerals in a highly bio-available form.

Other good sources of calcium include green, leafy vegetable like spinach. The darker the vegetable, the more calcium it contains, generally speaking. So, if you want to get a lot of calcium into your diet, you can also consume increasing quantities of these green, leafy vegetables. That would include spinach, kale, broccoli, and of course, all of the popular salad greens, the darker the better.

What about coral calcium? As one reader pointed out to me in an email, coral calcium is essentially ground up limestone powder. And, I tend to agree with that assessment. It's not calcium in a plant form. But the advantage of coral calcium over, say, cave limestone from caves in Missouri, is that the coral calcium also has the spectrum of minerals found in the ocean. In other words, you're getting more than just calcium and you're also getting trace minerals.

Unfortunately, coral calcium isn't very high in the other macro minerals, such as magnesium and zinc, but it is high in trace minerals. So, it's a great source of what I call inorganic calcium. You can also go the more expensive route and buy chelated calcium supplements from a variety of vitamin manufacturers like Twin Lab. Chelated calcium is yet more bio-available. It is more effective per ounce than other forms of calcium. But, is it more effective per dollar than other forms of calcium? I haven't done that assessment myself, but my guess is that it's both pricey and effective, meaning that you may be just as well off to spend your money on cheaper sources of calcium that have lower bio-availability, because you can afford to put more of that powder into your body.

Speaking of pricing, if you really want to get a good buy on coral calcium, you need to check out my book called "Secret Sources for Health Products" or what I just call 'Secret Sources.' In this book, which is currently offered free of charge to new subscribers, I reveal a fantastic source for buying coral calcium in bulk. It's essentially the same nutritional makeup as any other coral calcium, but it's a fraction of the price you might typically pay if you're buying brand name coral calcium from a health food store.

Other problems with milk from cows
Getting back to cows' milk, by the way, another reason I don't think cows' milk is a very good source of calcium is because it lacks magnesium, and it typically lacks vitamin D even if it says it has vitamin D on the bottle, because the vitamin D is destroyed by light. So, when you have the milk sitting there in the store, and it's being bombarded by photons from the fluorescent lighting in the store, the vitamin D is being quite rapidly destroyed. By the time you drink it, you're not getting really much vitamin D at all.

You'll get a lot more vitamin D by just walking outside and getting some natural sunshine on your skin, which is of course the preferred way to get vitamin D in the first place. You don't need to be drinking vitamin D if you have the sun. Just go out and get some sun and let your body create it for you. That's also a great way to save money on vitamin D supplements.

Another reason I don't like cows' milk as a source of calcium is because there is a lot of bad that goes in with the good of the calcium. You get the homogenized milk fats, which I call "processed milk fats." You will also get a whole lot of calories.

You know, milk, I think, is very deceptively marketed. When milk says 2 percent milk fat on the label, a lot of people are under the misimpression that from a calorie counting point of view, you only get 2 percent of your calories from fat when you're drinking a glass of milk. But that's not the case at all. If you actually do the math, you find that the fat provides 33 or 34 percent of the calories from drinking 2 percent milk.

So the fat is really a huge part of cows' milk. And it's not even healthy fat. It's saturated animal fat, the kind of fat that is widely known to promote cardiovascular disease, strokes and heart attacks. From a holistic and naturopathic point of view, saturated animal fats are known to stagnate the body, which means they can lead to constipation, chronic sinus infections, suppression of the immune system, inability of lymph to properly circulate, suppression of spleen function, and so on. So, there are many, many reasons not to be consuming cows' milk as a source of calcium.

Of course, the dairy industry doesn't want you to hear any of this. And probably, I'll get a threatening legal from them after this is published, challenging everything I've said here. But nevertheless, it's all quite true.

Wrapping this up, let me give you my experience with getting calcium into my body. What do I do for it? First of all, I do take coral calcium. I blend it in with my morning drink. If you've been reading this site for any period of time, you know that I have a morning drink, blended drink, where I combine rice protein, spirulina powder, superfood powder, soy milk, stevia, whole aloe vera leaf right out of my yard and a few other elements including coral calcium, and then drink that down as my breakfast.

But, I don't rely on coral calcium exclusively. I also consume a large amount of spirulina. It can be anywhere from 5 to 20 grams a day, depending on the day. I also tend to eat a lot of dark, leafy vegetables. I also consume a lot of nuts that have small amounts of calcium.

So I tend to get my calcium in a way that ancient humans got their calcium, which was by eating unprocessed foods in fairly large quantities, and getting those foods from their natural environments. So of course, I purchase organic foods whenever possible and I eat superfoods in fairly large quantities.

Always follow the money
But, one more thought to add to all of this, should you be skeptical of the information from people who are marketing the products covered by that information? Yes! Absolutely! You should always be skeptical. I hope that I'm reaching readers who are independent thinkers, who are intelligent, who are going to take every bit of information they come across and ask the sanity questions, which are: "Does this make sense? Is this information truly neutral? Is the party that's offering this information truly isolated from the financial repercussions of this information?"

Often, when you're receiving information from conventional medical circles, a good question to ask is, "How does this information defend the belief systems of the people providing it?" Or, "How does it protect their career or their published papers or their medical practice?" These are important questions to ask. And, I'm really quite happy to hear readers who question the information they read on my site. I love to get emails from people that say, "Hey! I read your articles every day and I agree with 98 percent of it. But here is this other part over here that I'm not sure about."

I'm ecstatic when I read those kinds of emails because that means I'm reaching people who are thinking and deciding for themselves what to believe and what to integrate in their own lives. And, that's really the point here. It's not that everybody has to agree with me, or adopt a holistic, natural point of view for health. What I'm trying to do is get people to think about their health, think about true cause and effect, and to break through the distortions put forth by the pharmaceutical industry and by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who are quite obviously biased in what they promote and what they attempt to discredit.