Sunday, June 12, 2011

Dr Dingle in the media

Since 1988 Dr Peter Dingle has been a regular in the Australian media as a researcher and presenter in health and environmental issues. Peter Dingle has been a regular on current affairs programs such as Today Tonight, ACA and ABC programs like “Can we help” as well as being featured on 4 corners and the 7.30 report. Dr Peter Dingle has made so guest appearances on Sunrise, George Negus, Insight and many other programs.

Peter Dingle started out his television presentation on a channel 9 program called Grant and Cameron in 1992 where Dr Dingle appeared as a fortnightly environmental commentator on daytime TV. Most recently, Dr Dingle co presented in the award winning 7 week TV series shown on SBS and now featured around the world “Is your home killing you”.

Dr Peter Dingle has been a regular on New Zealand (TV3) TV on a program called “What’s in your food” and most recently he himself has been part of a 2 part Australian Story covered on ABC.

Dr Peter Dingle is a regular on Australian radio, news and talkback topics, and has presented a weekly segment on health research for radio programs on 94.5, 96 FM, 6PR, ABC 720.He has had some extended segments on various ABC radio programs over the years from Launceston to the Sunshine Coast and Geraldton and included weekly programs with Verity James and Peter Holland.

Dr Dingle had a 90 minute radio program called Dr D and the free radicals for 3 years at Fremantle radio until 2003. Dr Dingle is reported weekly in the national media speaking on the latest research topics of health and the environment and is seen as one of Australia’s leading public health advocates on sustainable health. As a result, Dr Dingle has been known to do more than a dozen interviews for the media in one week.

Dr Dingle has written a monthly article, based on health research topics for NOVA magazine for the past 5 years with around 300,000 readership. Dr Dingle also had a regular segment in the Western Australian paper, Mind Body Spirit section for a number of years. Dr Dingle has written dozens of articles for home, health and business magazines and has been quoted in hundreds of magazine articles around the country.

Dr Dingle’s passion, excitement and gift for sharing information exactly as it is, has made him a sought after authority on any topics of his research around health and the environment. His enthusiasm is contagious and his audience of every day ordinary Australian families continue to grow.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Dr Dingle the Public Health Advocate

Since 1988, Dr Peter Dingle has represented the best interests of Australian people everywhere in his role as a public health advocate for dozens of health and environmental campaigns. Dr Dingle’s involvement is always built on evidence based research in combination with good sense, sustainability and best health practice. Dr Dingle strongly believes that if you don’t stand up for what you know is right, then you are just as much a part of the problem.

Dr Dingle strives to bring an informed and educated voice to open public discussions on health and medical topics based on the hundreds of hours he spends researching topics. His primary goal is to educate the general public with the facts on health and wellbeing to improve their awareness, leading to better quality of life through making well informed choices. In this same capacity, Dr Dingle regularly assists Australian families everywhere who are faced with household contamination issues, increased sensory sensitivity, chemical, pesticide, lead and Asbestos exposure, at no cost or benefit to himself or others, to pursue their best course of action, with his extensive knowledge in these areas.

After completing his honours degree in pesticides and health in 1988 Dr Dingle took on the position as president of Parents for Safe Food and Safe Food Consumers Association. Along with his role as president Dr Dingle conducted dozens of public talks on food additives and pesticides. Since then Dr Dingle has campaigned ever since and has written hundreds of articles and been quoted in the press even more times.

Because of his role in pesticide research and Dr Dingle’s strong public advocacy role he was appointed as Director of the National Registration Authority for Pesticides and Veterinary Chemicals (now the VCPMA) for 6 years to represent the public.

In 1988 Dr Dingle was also campaigning over toxic lead issues and was involved as a speaker in a number of public forums. Safe levels of lead in children’s blood have gone down from 30ug/dl in 1988, to 25 then 10 then more recently to 5 ug/dl. The levels he was ageing for in 1988. More recently he has been involved in the lead contamination campaign in Esperance including helping the residents of Esperance with information on decontaminating their homes of lead. More recently, Dr Dingle has been involved with the ongoing lead issue and transfer of lead through Fremantle and the surrounding suburbs.
Dr Dingle was involved in campaigning against various toxic waste sights in WA including the Bellevue toxic waste sight that exploded one night in 2001. He was an invited member of the Health Surveillance Register For the Bellevue Chemical Fire to represent public interests.

Dr Peter Dingle represented the public at Alcoa Wagerup refinery for almost 2 years in their battle over emissions from the Wagerup plant. Because of his independence, he was appointed Scientific Advisor to the parliamentary committee on Emissions from the Alcoa Wagerup refinery.

Dr Dingle has campaigned about the overuse of toxic chemicals in homes for the last 20 years as well as toxic chemicals in cosmetic and personal care products. Dr Dingle is one of the original researchers in this area in Australia, and is recognised nationally and internationally for his work even today. He has written 2 books on these topics which have sold thousands of copies and changed many lives. His passion for good health has inspired a whole generation of people more conscious of the toxins in their homes, and a great number of Dr Dingle’s students have gone on to work in this area and make further advancements.

Dr Dingle was extensively involved in the anti-smoking lobby, which included some of his research. Along with Dr Dingle 2 of his honours students did work on tobacco smoke monitoring and public perceptions to tobacco smoke. As a result of his expertise and interest in this area Dr Dingle was a director on the Australian Council on Smoking and Health.

In 1999 Dr Dingle became a director of the Amanda Young Foundation to help raise kids awareness of meningitis and help develop their health and leadership skills. Amanda Young was one of Dr Dingle’s first year students who was inspired by some of his lectures, so Amada’s parents asked Dr Dingle to be a part of the board. Dr Dingle was an active member on the board for around 5 years as well as being active in organising and participating in the Youth camps over that period.

Dr Dingle has been involved with the Mindd (Metabolic, Immunologic, Neurologic, Digestive, Developmental) Foundation in NSW for the past 5 years to highlight the role of environmental contaminants, vaccines and poor diet in diseases such as ADHD and autism. Dr Dingle has also campaigned against the overuse of drugs to treat ADHD when there are many environmental and nutritional factors associated with ADHD that get ignored by the medical industry.

Dr Dingle has campaigned for truth in health, dispelling many of the dietary myths around milk, cereal, processed foods and salt. From 2004 to 2006 Dr Dingle ran a campaign on the negative effects of processed breakfast foods and how it significantly contributes to the chronic health crisis in children and adults. A lot of this is written in his book “My Dog Eats Better than your Kids”.

In 2004 and 2005 Dr Dingle also ran a campaign against soft drinks. Dr Dingle published his report and spoke many times to the media to raise public awareness over the issue. This included public seminars pointed at canteen health and junk food and soft drinks sold in schools. Recently the American Paediatric Association has published a report criticising soft drinks and energy drinks.

Dr Dingle has also been arguing for nearly 2 decades now about the necessary use of nutritional supplements. Recently, in 2011, the American Paediatric Association has come out with a position to say that supplements can help with many forms of chronic illness
In 2009 Dr Dingle raised the issue of toxic chemicals used in sunscreen and how they may actually be contributing to the problem. Associated with this is the fact that many Australians are now not getting enough vitamin D from the sun. In 2009 Dr Dingle wrote a number articles published in both Australian and overseas health newsletters, showing that simple things such as lack of sunlight, low omega 3 levels are major contributing factors to the development and progression of Multiple Sclerosis.

Dr Dingle has recently led a 3 year study on cholesterol lowering medication, which has shown that the statin drugs used to lower cholesterol has little to no benefit on saving lives. This research lead to the publication of his eighth book “The Great Cholesterol Deception” with around 500 references. In his book and the articles he has written in the popular press he shows that it lowers cholesterol but does not lower the risk of heart attack or stroke by more than 1% and cost billions of dollars a year in Australia alone. Once again, Dr Dingle has been severely rebuked for presenting the facts on cholesterol. Yet all he is doing is reporting on what shows up in the scientific journals. In a continuation of this Dr Dingle recently sent a copy of his book to all the board members of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the government organisation that sponsors drug costs in Australia.

Lately Dr Dingle has voiced his disapproval and concern around the many independent public organisations for health which exist, such as the National Heart Foundation, Diabetes Australia and many more, who receive large amounts of funding from the pharmaceutical industry, and who rarely if ever, bring to attention of the public that there are many nutritional or lifestyle factors that contribute to the disease or can be used to reverse the illness.

Dr Dingle is passionate about truth and is enthusiastic about encouraging every individual to take responsibility for their own health, by remaining informed, reaching out beyond the existing health paradigms, for sustainable and preventative health solutions, to seek the truth and not just accept the medical and health dogma, because the people who tell you are so called professionals.

In recent times some of the media have chosen to portray Dr Dingle as a rebel without a cause, or a conscientious objector, we feel it is a more accurate representation of the facts to say Dr Peter Dingle is a Public Advocate for health and Environmental Issues in Australia and that Dr Dingle feels a strong ethical responsibility to look out for those in our communities who are not able to look after their own interests, as well as keeping large Industry and Government accountable for their actions.

In 2001 Dr Dingle won Murdoch Universities coveted Vice Chancellor’s Award for outstanding community service. In 2003, Dr D was a co founder in the award winning Living Smart Program which won the WA adult education award in 2003 and the Eureka Award in 2004. In 2004 he was recognised with special commendation in the WA Environmental Awards and Greenhouses won the best education program and in the same year won the Conscious Living, Nova Communicators award for his work with the public.

Dr Dingle has presented close to 1000 talks free to community groups over the years on community related health issues especially family and children’s health. As a result of all his work Dr Dingle has helped many thousands of people each year. In 2010 Dr Dingle could be seen or heard on the media a dozen times a week until some false charges could be trumped up against him. Unfortunately the concerted attach on Dr Peter Dingle by the media and its vested interests stopped Dr Dingle’s access to many parts of the media. Despite absolutely no negative finding against him at a time when he was also investigate by 4 different authorities at the same time. Any wonder why certain groups with strong vested intersts are out to get him when you consider what Peter stands for.

Some of the topics of research Dr Dingle has carried out includes
Research reports
Breakfast foods
Yoghurt and probiotics
Food labelling
Soft Drinks
Research students Thesis topic on
Allergies and asthma
Food labelling
Breakfast foods
Grain consumption and breakfast foods
Nutritional qualities of take home dinners
Allergy and probiotics
Pesticides and health
Developing health lifestyle programs (including living smart and seniors smart with my PhD students)
Healthy ageing (PhD)
Developing a health, environment and lifestyle program (PhD)
Effect of indoor air quality on causes and symptoms of asthma (PhD)

Public Essays on nutritional and environmental toxicology including
Vitamin D
Milk the poison
Milk and calcium
Allergies and probiotics
Life expectancy and the medical profession
Sick homes and toxic chemicals
Cholesterol is good for you
Statin drugs don’t work
Medical research bias
Corrupt drug companies
Kids chemicals and cancer
Breakfast junk foods
Multiple Sclerosis, a preventable illness
Vitamin D, we’re not getting enough
Mobile phones and non-ionising radiation
Organic food
Slow eating

Dr Dingle currently has 8 books in print including
The DEAL for Happier Healthier Smarter Kids
My Dog Eats Better Than Your Kids
The 6 Week Healthy Eating Planner
The Great Cholesterol Deception

For information on Peter Dingle’s qualifications go to

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Soft drinks - hard facts

Soft drinks are a noxious cocktail of substances that play havoc with your body. They‘re highly acidic, contain artificial colours and flavourings and high levels of sugar or artificial sweeteners. Over the next 10 years you are going to read a lot more literature on the toxic effects these drinks have on our kids.

Most (if not all) soft drinks have huge amounts of sugar (such as 10 or more teaspoons per can) that creates a sugar rush into the blood, in the same way as other high GI foods. The sugar is quickly converted to body fat. If it stays in the blood, it causes some free radical damage. The general guidelines for sugar consumption for a 70-kilogram teenager are no more than 10 – 12 teaspoons of sugar a day. One average can of soft drink will exceed that amount. For younger and smaller children the amount of sugar should be substantially less.

Recent research has shown that the high acidity of soft drinks – which generally have a pH (acidity scale) of around 2.8 – is a major factor in tooth decay, literally dissolving the enamel from the teeth. Moderate drinkers had a 200 per cent increase in dental problems while heavy soft drinkers were had a 500 per cent increase in dental caries. This was solely the effect of the acid on the teeth, without even considering the impact of the sugar content.
The high phosphate content of soft drinks increases their acidity and also binds with important macro and micro minerals such as iron and zinc; so, even if you eat any nutritious food with a soft drink, you’ll lose these important minerals. This mineral leaching process is further compounded by the high acidity, which causes minerals to be drawn from the bones, as the body to works to stabilise the acidity and keep the blood acid level constant. This can lead to serious depletion of bone calcium.

The table below shows the results from one of my student’s analysis of the pH and ingredients of many common soft drinks.

Now the medical solution to this problem is to come up with a drug (which has adverse side effects) to reduce the calcium loss from the bone. My solution is to eat more vegetables and to reduce the intake of soft drinks. (For more information on soft drinks, keep an eye out for my next book, “Soft Drinks - Hard Facts”).

• Drink less soft drinks;
* Drink more water;
* A little tea is okay, but remember a strong cup of tea can contain as much caffeine as a cup of coffee. Tea is full of antioxidants, even tea with milk, but don’t make it too strong.
• Coffee is full of stimulants that trigger of the production of dopamine then adrenaline and noradrenaline. That is, it triggers a mini stress response. A little coffee is fine, but remember, it’s a stimulant and takes about six hours for half of it to be excreted from your body, so don’t have it late in the day.


A study published in February, 2004 showed that when heavy smokers drank four cups of green tea per day for four months there was a significant decrease in a urinary marker of DNA damage (Hakim 2004). Green tea might also be beneficial for those undergoing conventional treatment for cancer, although that is far from proven.

Hakim IA, Harris RB, Chow HH, Dean M, Brown S, Ali IU. Effect of a 4-month tea intervention on oxidative DNA damage among heavy smokers: role of glutathione S-transferase genotypes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13:242-9.

Mobile Phones

While there is significant controversy about the use of mobile phones and whether they will cause or contribute to particular diseases, there is no doubt that they have the potential to cause harm. A serious problem lies with our inability to measure the relationship between our exposure to radiofrequency radiation and resulting disease. Just as difficult is separating out the roles of vested interests. While the weight of evidence from industry and government studies suggests that there is little, if any, problem, the majority of evidence from independent studies indicates that there are very serious issues that require careful consideration. However, once technology is rolled out it is almost impossible to roll it back.

The problem with mobile phones is that they emit radio frequency from the base station antennas, producing low but continuous exposure to entire communities and to the mobile phone or handset, which produces intense, intermittent exposure to the head of the user. Mobile telephones operate on sending and receiving frequencies in the approximate range of 825 MHz to 915 MHz, although with the continued expansion of this technology, the range of frequencies to which users are potentially exposed may be broadened to 450 MHz to 2500 MHz. The antenna of the phone radiates power equally in all directions at peak levels of 1-2 W when the phone is operating. Also emitted from the phone is a low-frequency magnetic field, associated with surges in electric current from the battery, generally in the range of 0.125 W – 0.25 W.

The amount of this radiation that is actually absorbed by the user varies according to the amount of power emitted from particular phones. The amount of power depends on design factors such as make, model and type of aerial as well as individual use of the device—including the proximity of the phone to the ear or skull, the orientation of the phone and the use of “hands-free” phone kits. The proximity of the phone to the user’s head has been found to have the most significant relationship between mobile phone use and the amount of microwave and radiofrequency radiation the head absorbs.

From the phone being in contact with the head, the amount of power that is absorbed decreases exponentially as the phone is moved farther away from the ear. That is, exposure to the radiation decreases a lot with just a small move of the phone away from the head. The amount of power that is absorbed can decrease by as much as 25 percent with the phone being placed one centimetre from the head when in use. “Hands-free” kits are also a practicable means of reducing exposure to radiation by two orders of magnitude, due to the increased distance of the phone to the sensitive tissues of the human body. Similarly, the use of the speakerphone held away from the head can also dramatically reduce exposure.

Health effects

The effects of non-ionising radiation from mobile phones can be broadly categorised into thermally (heat) induced and non-thermally induced biological effects. Non thermal effects of mobile phones include headache, memory problems, increase in frequency of seizures in children, decrease in duration of deep sleep and inhibition of secretion of melatonin.

Typical effects that have been noted in human studies include radiofrequency sickness, electroencephalographic changes, cell proliferation, blood pressure changes and blood-brain barrier leakages. Also confirmed have been transient, but significant, modifications in dermal or cutaneous blood flow as a result of standard operation of mobile phones. There are many less severe effects linked to mobile phone use; these include headache, sore muscles (radiating from the ear to the temple and through the shoulders) and sleep disturbances.

There is also growing concern about the potential contribution of mobile phones to brain cancer, leukaemia and acoustic neuroma (a particular tumour) in the head and neck. Few epidemiological studies have managed to confirm a solid link between mobile phone usage and tumour formation; making such links is extremely complicated due to issues such as the latency period between exposure and onset of symptoms. It may also be due to the strong industry bias in research. However, several population and surrogate studies have produced alarming results. In a national US study, a significantly increased incidence of neuroepithelial tumours was found to be consistent with mobile phone usage. This was indicated by increased DNA strand breaks and chromosomal aberrations, which promote the development of tumours. Other studies have reported similar findings, noting changes in the development of enzymes associated with carcinogenesis after exposure to radiofrequency radiation. This suggests that the influence of radiofrequency and microwave radiation is more localised to the source of the energy and perhaps aided by the ability of radiofrequency radiation to interfere with the blood-brain barrier. This is supported in surrogate studies on animals, which showed influences on immuno-reactivity and neurotransmitters within the brain. My take is that mobile phones contribute to brain tumours and exposure should be limited as much as possible.

The impact of radiofrequency on male reproductive organs is also an area of increasing distress due to the known interference of radiofrequency and microwave radiation on the testes. A recent study found that electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones interferes with human sperm motility, the ability of the sperm to progress through the reproductive tract. This is of prime concern as this interference may lead to structural and behavioural changes in the male germ cell that may not be apparent until later in life. In a study of laboratory animals exposed to low-energy radiofrequency radiation (that is, from a mobile phone), the exposure group experienced higher percentages of non-progressive or no-motility sperm. This could generate problems in the future for many, given the young age at which individuals start to use mobile phones.

While there are many concerns about the use of mobile phones, most governments are locked into the continued and expanded use of these devices. Authorities around the world are vague on the subject of mobile phones, mainly because of economic reasons. Despite this, the World Health Organization recommends that one limit time on mobile phones and use hands free devices whenever possible. The WHO also advises to use a “land line” phone when available, limit the duration of mobile phone conversations, fully extend the phone’s antenna where possible (i.e., if the phone has an external antenna) and use one’s mobile phone in an open area so the phone transmits at a lower power level.

The controversy about the health effects of mobile phones is illustrated by a 2001 report from the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, which stated that children under the age of 16 should be discouraged from using these devices. The reason for this recommendation is the potential for children to absorb more energy from radiation as a result of their relatively smaller head sizes, thinner skulls and higher tissue conductivity. The age recommendation was lowered to 10 years in 2004. This was due to pressure from the mobile phone companies, especially given that teenagers are probably the biggest users of mobile phones and these companies could have lost a significant portion of a growing, captive market.

Mobile phone towers are another big potential problem. They emit microwave signals in a relatively wide beam. These emissions have intensities that are quite high at close range to the antenna but which drop in intensity with distance. By any measure, the level of the signal is relatively low on the ground but residents nearby are exposed to these emissions 24 hours a day. No one knows the long-term effects of this type of exposure or the range of susceptibility.