According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, most researchers believe exposure to some kind of toxin or toxins in the environment triggers the development of Parkinson's disease (PD) -- the degenerative disorder of the central nervous system that impairs motor skills (including walking), speech and other functions. Pesticides have long been on the list of possible suspects as a PD-causing toxin. But a new study just published in the American Journal of Epidemiology by University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) scientists appears to be the "smoking gun" that places pesticides at the top of that list. They found that exposure to a combination of two widely used pesticides increased the risk of Parkinson's disease by an incredible 75 percent.

In previous animal studies and cell cultures, researchers have shown pesticides spark a neurodegenerative process that leads to Parkinson's disease. The UCLA scientists, however, are the first to provide evidence for a similar process in humans.

They came up with their alarming results by analyzing an epidemiological study of Central Valley, California, residents. The region is one of the nation's top food-growing regions and crops like potatoes, dry beans and tomatoes have long been routinely sprayed with fungicides, herbicides and pesticides.

For their study, the UCLA researchers enrolled 368 longtime residents of Central Valley who had been diagnosed with Parkinson's and 341 other PD-free residents as a control group. Their analysis found that people who lived within 500 meters of fields sprayed with two pesticides, maneb and paraquat, between 1974 and 1999 had an extraordinary 75 percent increased risk for Parkinson's. What's more, people who were diagnosed with PD by the age of 60 or younger were found to have been at much higher risk because they had been exposed to maneb, paraquat or both in combination between 1974 and 1989, during the time they were children, teens or young adults. In these people, early pesticide exposure had increased their risk for the disease by four to six times.

"The results confirmed two previous observations from animal studies. One, that exposure to multiple chemicals may increase the effect of each chemical. That's important, since humans are often exposed to more than one pesticide in the environment. And second, that the timing of exposure is also important," UCLA scientist Beate Ritz, professor of epidemiology at the UCLA School of Public Health, said in a statement to media about her research team's findings.

She added that this is the first epidemiological study to provide strong evidence that maneb and paraquat work together to become highly neurotoxic in humans and greatly increase the risk of PD. What makes this particularly concerning is that the UCLA data "suggests that the critical window of exposure to toxicants may have occurred years before the onset of motor symptoms when a diagnosis of Parkinson's is made," Dr. Ritz said.

A raw food diet is a healthy and nutritious natural way of eating. Followers of raw food diets finally have some support as to the health benefits, as mainstream studies have recently shown some considerable benefits associated with following a raw food diet.

Typically followers of a raw food diet consume at least 75% of their diet as uncooked and otherwise unprocessed plant based foods including but not limited to fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, whole grains, nuts and seeds. Nothing is to be heated above 115 degrees F in order to preserve the integrity of the enzymes associated with digestion and absorption. Dehydration of food is permissible but only if the process is kept below 115 degrees. Followers of a raw food diet claim that they have increased energy, weight loss, and overall better health.

Following a raw food diet has some definite benefits that can now be backed up through scientific research. For instance, according to a study found in The Journal of Nutrition following a raw food diet long-term can help lower the risk of cardiovascular disease, and lower the levels of total cholesterol and triglycerides. Another study conducted by Dr. Luigi Fontana and his team found that followers of a raw food diet have low body mass index (BMI), high Vitamin D levels, low levels of C-reactive protein, and lower levels of IGF-1. Vitamin D level is important because it is closely related to bone strength. C-reactive protein is "an inflammatory molecule that is becoming linked with the risk of heart disease, diabetes and other chronic disease," which means that a low level should indicate less risk. IGF-1 is "a growth factor linked to risk of breast and prostate cancer," which again means that a low level should indicate less risk.

A study on raw food diet followers conducted over a period of 2 years by Lenka J. Zajic (who holds a Masters in Vegan and Live Food Nutrition from the Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center in Arizona) showed some interesting results in women especially. Zajic's study shows a marked improvement in women's menstrual cycles as well as a drop in overall stress levels and a decrease in the amount of sleep needed to feel well rested. Zajic claims that "There seems to be no question that, at least initially, eating a raw foods diet can reduce or cure many health complaints."

To conclude recent mainstream scientific studies have shown that following a raw foods diet can lower the risk of cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, and other chronic diseases while aiding with maintaining a healthy weight, BMI, cholesterol levels, triglyceride levels, and strong healthy bones.

A new study just published in the April issue of the medical journal Radiology has a sobering conclusion for anyone who thinks "non-invasive" CT scans are simply pain-free, high tech medical marvels with no downside. The research shows that people who undergo numerous computed tomography (CT) scans over their lifetime may be at a significantly increased risk of cancer.

In fact, seven percent of the patients studied had enough recurrent CT testing to raise their estimated cancer risk by one percent or more above the baseline US cancer risk rate of 42 percent. Among the patients in the top percentile of cumulative lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer, CT scans increased their chances of malignancies by 2.7 to 12 percent.

According to the Radiological Society of North America, some 68.7 million CT exams were performed in the U.S. in 2008 -- that's 6 million more than were performed in 2006. CT is commonly used to make medical diagnoses and to help figure out treatment options because the scanning technique provides detailed images of internal organs through digital imaging processing which generates a three-dimensional picture. To accomplish this, CT scanning involves taking a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images around a single axis of rotation. The result is that CT scans use higher radiation doses than most other imaging exams.

For their study, Aaron Sodickson, M.D., Ph.D., assistant director of Emergency Radiology at Brigham and Women's Hospital and researcher at the Center for Evidence-Based Imaging in Boston, and his research team developed new methodology to estimate the cumulative radiation exposure for CT scans and the associated radiation-induced cancer risks for individual patients. The scientists took each patient's CT history from electronic medical records and applied standard risk estimation models using a formula which takes into account the patient's gender and age at time of x-ray exposure.

In all, some 31,462 adult patients were studied. All had diagnostic CT scans at Brigham and Women's Hospital or the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in 2007 and had undergone a total of 190,712 CT exams over the previous 22 years. About 33 percent of the research subjects underwent five or more lifetime CT exams, five percent had more than 22 CT scans, and approximately one percent underwent more than 38 exams. Fifteen percent received estimated cumulative effective radiation doses of more than 100 millisieverts (mSv) -- equal to the radiation from 1,000 chest x-rays. Four percent received a whopping radiation exposure of more than 250 mSv and one percent were subjected to over 399 mSv.

"CT is an excellent diagnostic tool of tremendous clinical value in many situations," Dr. Sodickson said in a statement released to the media. "Individual decisions about its use should balance the expected clinical benefits against the potential cumulative risks of recurrent imaging."

"However, we feel that a higher clinical threshold is warranted in patients undergoing a large amount of recurrent CT imaging, particularly if many of their prior CT scans have been negative. This scenario may result in a combination of high cumulative risk with low clinical benefit," he added.

Dr. Sodickson also pointed out that the techniques implemented in his group's study could be used to identify higher risk patients who might benefit from "enhanced radiation protection efforts". This statement is of particular interest because it appears to indicate better radiation protection is available -- although clearly not being routinely used.

Other scientists have previously urged restraint in using CT scans too often and have sounded alarms over the radiation exposure associated with the technology. For example, in 2007, writing in The New England Journal of Medicine, David J. Brenner, Ph.D., and Eric J. Hall, Ph.D., from the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center, argued that the potential cancer-causing effects from using CT scans might be underestimated or overlooked. In fact, they stated one third of all CT scans performed in the United States may not even be medically necessary.