Category Archives: mast

More facts disclosed on brain damage from mobile phones

Approaching Epidemic: Brain Damage from Mobile Phone Radiation
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
September 03 2009 10,060

cell phone, emf, radio waves, brain cancerA collaborative team of international EMF activists has released a report detailing eleven design flaws of the 13-country, Telecom-funded Interphone study.

The exposé discusses research on cell phones and brain tumors, concluding that:

  • There is a risk of brain tumors from cell phone use
  • Telecom funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors
  • Children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors

The Interphone study, begun in 1999, was intended to determine the risks of brain tumors, but its full publication has been held up for years. Components of this study published to date reveal what the authors call a ‘systemic-skew’, greatly underestimating brain tumor risk.

The design flaws include categorizing subjects who used portable phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cell phones,) as ‘unexposed’; exclusion of many types of brain tumors; exclusion of people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed as a consequence of their brain tumor; and exclusion of children and young adults, who are more vulnerable.

Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Director Emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute has stated,

“Based on substantial evidence, especially from industry-independent studies that long term exposure to radiofrequency radiation may lead to increased risk for brain tumors, I issued a precautionary advisory last year to faculty and staff of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute.

Since then, my particular concern about exposure of children to radiofrequency has been supported by a report from Dr. Lennart Hardell. Some of my scientific colleagues have expressed skepticism about the reported biological effects, especially DNA0A damage by radiofequency radiation, because of the absence of a demonstrated underlying molecular mechanism.

However, based on the precautionary principle, I believe it is more prudent to take seriously the reports by multiple investigators that radiofrequency can damage DNA and increase the risk for brain tumors, and for industry-independent agencies to provide needed funding for detailed research to ascertain the molecular basis for such effects.”

Lloyd Morgan, lead author and member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society says,

“Exposure to cell phone radiation is the largest human health experiment ever undertaken, without informed consent, and has some 4 billion participants enrolled.

Science has shown increased risk of brain tumors from use of cell phones, as well as increased risk of eye cancer, salivary gland tumors, testicular cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukemia.

The public must be informed.”


Sources:

Dr. Mercola''s Comments Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

After a break in the media about the dangers of cell phones, the issue will likely regain momentum with the release of this brand new report.

An International Expert Conference on Cell Phones and Health is scheduled to take place on September 13-15 in Washington D.C., and a yet to be formally announced Senate hearing on cell phone safety is also in the works by Senator Arlen Specter, according to Microwave News.

With the ever-increasing, widespread use of wireless communications, it is imperative to understand the risks inherent in the use of the technology, yet the government has been very slow to respond, no doubt in large part due to industry pressure. (In fact, the cell phone industry is expected to boycott the upcoming conference.)

Ever growing scientific research corroborates the suspicion that information-carrying radio waves transmitted by cell phones and other wireless devices can:

A quote from Chris Woollams, one of the endorsers of the new report, sums up the issue well:

“In a world where a drug cannot be launched without proof that it is safe, where the use of herbs and natural compounds available to all since early Egyptian times are now questioned, their safety subjected to the deepest scrutiny, where a new food cannot be launched without prior approval, the idea that we use mobile telephony, including masts, and introduce WiFi and mobile phones without restrictions around our 5 year olds is double-standards gone mad.

I speak, not just as an editor and scientist that has looked in depth at all the research, but as a father that lost his beloved daughter to a brain tumor.”

Researchers Keep Finding Links Between Cell Phone Use, Brain Damage and Cancer

Last year, a well-circulated Swedish study found that people using cell phones doubled their risk of developing brain cancer and acoustic neuroma (a tumor that damages your hearing nerve).

The study also showed that people who started using cell phones before the age of 20 were more than five times as likely to develop brain cancer.

The European Parliament responded by voting 522 to 16 to urge ministers across Europe to impose stricter limits for exposure to radiation from mobile and cordless phones, wi-fi and other radiation-generating devices — in part because children are particularly vulnerable to the risk.

Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, M.D., the Speaker for
Environmental Medicine for the Austrian Medical Association in Vienna, Austria says:

“The scientific data show, with a high degree of confidence, that mobile phone exposure is associated with an increased brain tumor risk.

The age group below 20 years is facing the greatest risk, which for malignant (deadly) brain tumors is about 400 percent, compared to non-exposed.

When we take the long latency period of up to some decades into account, and the fact that large parts of our society, and especially more and more teenagers and even children are using mobile phones on a daily basis, we may well expect a brain tumor epidemic.

From a public health perspective there is an urgent need not only for a wake-up call for our society, but for measures that are able to combat this public health threat effectively, now.”

The cell phone industry’s standard comment has been that “the peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk.”

This report exposes that statement for the lie that it is.

In fact, there’s no shortage of evidence showing that cell phone use (and other wireless devices) can be dangerous to your health, and to your child in particular.

As this new report points out, even some of the industry’s own research found that cell phones caused brain tumors, and subsequent industry-funded studies from 2000 to 2002 also showed an elevated risk of brain cancer.

One such study reportedly found a 20 percent increased risk of brain tumor for every year of cell phone use!

And, if you remove the Telecom industry funded research, then the weight of the evidence overwhelmingly shows that cell phones cause health problems, including, but not limited to:

  • Brain tumors
  • Eye cancer
  • Testicular cancer
  • Salivary gland tumors
  • Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
  • Leukemia

Fortunately more and more people are beginning to take the warning signs seriously.

In 2005, the British-based National Radiological Protection Board suggested children younger than age 8 should not be given a cell phone as it risks exposing their young bodies to harmful radiation. Last year Toronto’s department of public health followed suit, warning that because of possible side effects from radio frequency radiation, children under 8 should only use a cell phone in emergencies, and teenagers should limit calls to less than 10 minutes.

The U.K., Belgium, Germany, France and Russia have also introduced precautionary policies regarding cell phone usage due to potential health risks.

Few people realize this, but brain cancer has surpassed leukemia as the number one cancer killer in children, and many scientists believe this is directly linked to the exponential increase in cell phone use and other wireless devices.

Australia has seen an increase in pediatric brain cancers of 21 percent in just one decade. This is consistent with studies showing a 40 percent brain tumor increase across the board in Europe and the U.K. over the last 20 years.

These statistics are consistent with many of the scientific research findings.

Another example is the 2003 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives (the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). They found that rats exhibited serious neuronal brain damage following exposure to radiation from a cell phone, at levels comparable to what you would experience during normal use.

The nerve cell damage was observed in several places within the rats’ brains, including the cortex, hippocampus and basal ganglia.

The authors concluded,

“Intense use of mobile phones by youngsters is a serious consideration. A neuronal damage of the kind described here may not have immediate, demonstrable consequences, even if repeated. In the long run, however, it may result in reduced brain reserve capacity that might be unveiled by other later neuronal disease or even the wear and tear of aging.”

What Can You Do?

Remember, the damage from cell phone exposure can take many years to surface. There are rarely any initial symptoms, just like smoking and lung cancer. Are you really willing to risk the chance of developing brain cancer because you don’t want to sacrifice the minor inconvenience of using your cell’s speaker phone, or using a safe headset?

This should be of particular concern if you have children, since, just like smoking, WiFi does not discriminate between user and bystander.

I have written more in-depth about how to reduce the risk to your child before, and as a refresher, I strongly urge you to review some of that information now.

For a review of HOW cell phones and other wireless technology can cause the type of damage just discussed, I recommend reading this previous article.

In addition, the eye-opening DVD Public Exposure covers this serious health issue in even greater depth. But for immediate recommendations on how to protect yourself and your family from the dangers of cell phone radiation, please review the guidelines included in my previous article, Now Half the World Has a Cell Phone – – Why That is a Brain Tumor Epidemic Waiting to Happen.

Leave a comment

Filed under awareness, cancer, cell phone, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electrosmog, EMF, EMR, mast, mobile, radiation interference, WiFi

Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern

PRESS RELEASE

Contact:  USA – Lloyd Morgan Tel. 510 841 4362 E-mail: bilovsky@aol.com

UK – Alasdair Philips Tel. 01353 778422   E-mail: alasdair@powerwatch.org.uk

Cellphones Cause Brain Tumors, Says New Report by International EMF Collaborative

You Tube Introduction:

August 25, 2009. A new report, “Cellphones and Brain Tumors:  15 Reasons for Concern,Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone,” was released today by a collaborative of international EMF activists. Groups affiliated with the report include Powerwatch and the Radiation Research Trust in the U.K., and in the U.S., EMR Policy Institute, ElectromagneticHealth.org and The Peoples Initiative Foundation. Download the report.    (http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/15reasons.asp )

The exposé discusses research on cellphones and brain tumors and concludes:

·      There is a risk of brain tumors from cellphone use;

·      Telecom funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors, and;

·      Children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors.

This report, sent to government leaders and media today, details eleven design flaws of the 13-country, Telecom-funded Interphone study. The Interphone study, begun in 1999, was intended to determine the risks of brain tumors, but its full publication has been held up for years. Components of this study published to date reveal what the authors call a ‘systemic-skew’, greatly underestimating brain tumor risk.

The design flaws include categorizing subjects who used portable phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cellphones,) as ‘unexposed’; exclusion of many types of brain tumors; exclusion of people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed, as a consequence of their brain tumor; and exclusion of children and young adults, who are more vulnerable.

Lloyd Morgan, lead author and member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society says, “Exposure to cellphone radiation is the largest human health experiment ever undertaken, without informed consent, and has some 4 billion participants enrolled.  Science has shown increased risk of brain tumors from use of cellphones, as well as increased risk of eye cancer, salivary gland tumors, testicular cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukemia. The public must be informed.”

International scientists endorsing “Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern” include Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Director Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; David Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany; Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University;Professor Yury Grigoriev, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, and many others.

Leave a comment

Filed under awareness, cancer, cell phone, children, disease, electrohypersensitivity, electromagnetic fields, electrosmog, EMF, EMR, environment, global warming, mast, mobile, tower

Class Action Suit Against CLEAR WI-MAX. Technology Threatens Health of Everyone

Join the Class Action Suit Against CLEAR WI-MAX. Technology Threatens Health of Everyone

Could Dow Chemical set up a plant in downtown Portland? Well, Wi-Max technology is wi fi on steroids that will blast every portlander in our homes whether we subscribe to it or not and this technology is at least 3x’s as harsh as the average cell tower. They must be stopped or the genetic integrity of our children may be at risk. Thousands of studies worldwide (not one ongoing study in the u.s.!!) confirm that this unregulated technology poses a devastating health risk that some scientists predict will overtake tobacco and asbestos combined. Check out Bioinitiative Report and www.wirelesswatchblog.com

Where does it begin and where does it end?

If you would like to know more about this, write to  oregonskywatch@gmail.com and check out the site: www.wirelesswatchblog.com We are organizing a class action suit against the company and the Mayor and City Council for allowing this to be set up here.
———————————————————————————–

Wi-fi faces health concerns
Print All Articles Letter to the editor Podcast Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com
on 11 December 2003, 22:00
by staff

The mobile telephone industry spent many years – and millions of dollars – fighting charges that wireless handsets could cause brain cancer. Now it looks like the budding wi-fi movement could face its own legal crisis with lawsuits alleging that 802.11 networks can cause similar physical problems.

A few families in the Chicago suburb of Oak Park, Illinois, have filed a class-action lawsuit against Oak Park Elementary School’s District 97. They assert that wireless local-area networks (WLAN) in the school buildings expose their children to potential harm. Their suit points to a “substantial body of evidence that high frequency electro-magnetic radiation poses substantial and serious health risks, particularly to growing children.” The suit does not seek financial damages, but an end to the use of wi-fi in the neighborhood’s schools.

The Wi-Fi Alliance, an industry group with members including Intel, Microsoft, Philips, and IBM, is aware of the suit, and says it will continue to pay attention to developments. “It’s natural when you hear about litigation for people to take notice,” says Alliance chairman Dennis Eaton. “Members are sensitive to the amount of time and effort that might have to be spent defending themselves.”

The small suit could have big ramifications, particularly with wi-fi vendors. Global sales of 802.11 networks reached almost $1.3 billion through the first three quarters of this year, according to market research firm Dell’Oro Group. Tens of millions of people use the technology now, and the company predicts that the number will grow to 707 million by 2008, says Pyramid Research.

Furthermore, as public hotspots invade hotels, airports, and coffee shops, an enormous number of people could claim to be adversely and unknowingly affected by WLANs. That is a key point of the lawsuit. “We have not established a level that can be considered safe or even tolerably safe,” says Ron Baiman, one of the parents who filed the lawsuit. “Our thinking is that it is certainly prudent at this point not to use these in public schools.”

Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE), October 10, 2006

CONSENSUS STATEMENT ON ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION — DRAFT

[Rachel’s introduction: The Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE) has been building consensus on the need for precautionary measures to avert harm from electromagnetic radiation. Here is their draft statement.]

We, the undersigned, are members of the CHE-EMF Working Group within the Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE), together with like-minded colleagues from science, medicine and environmental health.

We believe there are legitimate health concerns regarding exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (EMR), which has rapidly become one of the most pervasive environmental exposures in modern life. These concerns are based on the weight of evidence spanning decades of scientific research on radiofrequency (RF) radiation from countries around the world. The radiofrequency radiation sources addressed in this Consensus Statement are those from newer wireless technologies such as cell phones and cordless phones, cell towers/antennas, WI-FI networks, WI-MAX, as well as Broadband Radiofrequency Internet over electrical power lines (BPL).

We recognize that there are significant uncertainties about the long- term health effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. However, prudent policy requires acting on the best available scientific evidence. Then, based on the Precautionary Principle, which is an overarching guide for decision making when dealing with credible threats of harm and scientific uncertainty, policies to protect public health can be adopted.

As a way of implementing the Precautionary Principle, there should be an ongoing investment in research, as well as funding for a transparent, participatory policy analysis of alternatives, when there is reason to believe that there may be a significant risk from current or proposed technologies. The principle states that “when an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” These precautionary measures may include but are not necessarily limited to making investments in research and policy analysis. We are deeply concerned that there is insufficient non-industry funding support for critical research, given the potential public health consequences of involuntary and chronic exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

The following four examples show how the Precautionary Principle has been implemented.

* Scientists in the United Kingdom recommend that no child under the age of 8 years old use a cell phone. Research evidence shows that children are more vulnerable than adults to harm from other environmental exposures (such as chemicals), and the same may be true of radiofrequency radiation exposures.

* The International Association of Fire Fighters passed a resolution in 2004, calling for a moratorium on new cell phone antennas on fire stations and a study of the health effects of these installations. The Chairman of the Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP), Yuri Grigoriev, advised that cellular communication is strongly contraindicated for children and teenagers. The Canadian Public Health Officer, David Butler-Jones, advised Canadians to limit their and their children’s use of cell phones until science resolves uncertainties about long-term health effects.

* More research is needed on the health/biological effects, the level of current and future exposure, and the feasibility, cost and exposure implications of these technologies, as well as alternatives and modifications to current technology.

* While research continues, we believe there is sufficient evidence to recommend precautionary measures that people can take to protect their health, and the health of their families, co-workers and communities. We recommend the following measures:

Use a corded phone/land line if possible, which does not involve RF exposure. Emergency use of cell phones is not discouraged but land lines should be used for normal day-to-day communication needs.

If you use a cell phone, use an earpiece/headset or the “speaker phone” setting, which greatly reduces the RF exposure because the phone is not held next to your head and brain. Using text messaging is also a good way to reduce RF exposure.

Be aware that the cell phone radiates to some degree even when in “standby” mode. You can avoid this radiation by either keeping the phone off (using it as an answering machine), or away from your body.

Using a cordless phone outdoors to alert you to an incoming call is handy, but returning inside to use a corded phone/land line to conduct the conversation is advisable.

Before adopting WI-FI wireless networks in workplaces, schools and cities, the extent of exposure and possible health effects should be publicly discussed. Although convenient, WI-FI wireless networks create pervasive, continuous, involuntary exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Preferable alternatives to wireless technology for voice and data transmission, including cable and fiber-optic technologies (that produce no radiofrequency radiation), should be considered, given the uncertainties about health, cost, liability, and inequity of impact.

There needs to be substantial community involvement in decisions about the placement and operation of cell towers (also called antennas or masts). Where possible, siting of these facilities should avoid residential areas and schools, day-care centers, hospitals and other buildings that house populations more vulnerable to the effects of radiation exposure. Periodic information on levels of exposure should be provided to the public. Cell towers produce radiofrequency radiation exposure in communities that is constant and involuntary. While acknowledging that this technology enables voice and data transmission via a cell phone that is important to many people in every community, those who live, work or go to school in the vicinity of wireless facilities will be disproportionately exposed. Not enough research has been done to determine the safety or risk of chronic exposure to low-intensity RF radiation from cell towers and some studies suggest there may be harm.

Broadband Radiofrequency Internet transmitted over electrical power lines (BPL) needs to be thoroughly researched and the findings publicly disclosed and discussed before full deployment of this new technology. Discussion should include comparison of exposures and potential health effects of BPL technology versus cable and fiber optics. BPL technology uses electrical wiring as the vehicle for carrying RF radiation into and throughout all electrified buildings in a community, including every home. Therefore, BPL has the potential to expose entire communities to a new, continuous, involuntary source of RF radiation. The RF signal will be carried on everyone’s home wiring, even in the homes of those who do not wish to subscribe to this new Internet service. People will have no chance to “opt out” or turn off the signal.

In summary, we recommend caution in the further deployment of wireless technologies, and deployment of safer, wired alternatives until further study allows better definition of the risks of wireless.

Signed by:

Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, Member, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Corte Madera, CA

James B. Beal, EMF Interface Consulting, Wimberley, TX

Martin Blank, PhD, Columbia University, New York, NY

Roger Coghill, Coghill Research Labs, UK

Andy Davidson, HESE-UK, Worthing, UK

Cynthia Drasler, MBA, President, Organic Excellence Chemical Free Products; Host, Chemical Free Living Radio Show, Phoenix, AZ

Nancy Evans, Health Science Consultant, San Francisco, CA

David Fancy, Canadian SWEEP Initiative (Safe Wireless Electric and Electromagnetic Policy), St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada

Marne Glaser, Chicago, IL

Reba Goodman, PhD, Columbia University, New York, NY

Leonore Gordon, Coordinator, New York State Coalition to Regulate Antenna Siting, Brooklyn, NY

Elizabeth A. (“Libby”) Kelley, Executive Director, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts, Novato, CA

Michael Kundi, PhD, Institute of Environmental Health, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Henry Lai, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Michael Lerner, PhD, Commonweal, Bolinas, CA

Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, Indio, CA

Lloyd Morgan, Berkeley, CA

Lisa Nagy, MD, Member, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, and Environmental Health Research Foundation, Vineyard Haven, MA

Elihu Richter, MD, MPH, Hebrew University, Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel

Joan M. Ripple, Treasurer, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts and health and disability researcher, Novato, CA

Jeanne Rizzo, RN, Executive Director, Breast Cancer Fund, San Francisco, CA

Ted Schettler, MD, MPH, Science and Environmental Health Network, Ann Arbor, MI

Cindy Sage, Sage Associates, Santa Barbara, CA Lavinia Gene Weissman, Managing Director, WorkEcology, Jamaica Plain, MA

Patricia Wood, Executive Director, Grassroots Environmental Education, Port Washington, NY

See below for international resolutions urging precaution with wireless technologies.

International Resolutions Advocating a Precautionary Approach to the Use and Expansion of Wireless Technologies

Scientists and public policy researchers across the globe have acknowledged the evidence of potential health effects from radiofrequency radiation and advocated a precautionary approach to the use and expansion of wireless technologies. For example:

October 1998, scientists adopt the Vienna Resolution, which states that “biological effects from low intensity [RFR] exposures are scientifically established.”

June 2000, scientists adopt the Salzburg Resolution, stating “the assessment of biological effects of exposures from base stations in the low-dose range is difficult but indispensable for protection of public health…there is at present evidence of no threshold for adverse health effects.” In other words, there is no threshold for safe exposure.

May 2000, the UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones chaired by Sir William Stewart, reports that “a precautionary approach be adopted until more robust scientific information becomes available.” [Read the “Stewart Report” here.]

September 2002, scientists at the International Conference “State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields Scientific and Legal Issues” held in Catania, Italy, adopt the Catania Resolution, calling for “preventive strategies based on the precautionary principle.”

November 2004, the European Union’s EMF REFLEX Research Project is released [11 Mbyte PDF], showing that mobile phone radiation (radiofrequency radiation) damages DNA in human cells. [Read a commentary by Dr. Lennart Hardell here.]

In January 2005, the UK National Radiation Protection Board issues a warning that no child under age 8 should use a cell phone, citing the growing scientific evidence that exposure to RFR poses a health risk. The report also cautions about the health risks of exposure to cell phone antennas (referred to as “base stations): “…there remain particular concerns in the UK about the impact of base stations on health, including well-being. Despite current evidence which shows that exposures of individuals are likely to be only a small fraction of those from phones, they may impact adversely on well-being.”

In February 2005, the Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA) issues a statement urging that “the strictest possible safety regulations be established for the installation of masts and transmitters, and for the acceptable levels of potential exposure of individuals to electromagnetic radiation.”

In September 2006, the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) releases the Benevento Resolution, which emphasizes that the accumulated evidence points to “adverse health effects from occupational and public exposures to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (EMF) at current exposure levels.” Signed by 31 leading scientists from around the world, this resolution calls for governments to “adopt guidelines for public and occupational EMF exposure that reflect the Precautionary Principle.”

homepage: homepage: http://www.wirelesswatchblog.com

Informant: Martin Weatherall

Leave a comment

Filed under antenna, awareness, children, disease, mast, microwave, mobile

Wireless Networks (Wi-Fi) Consumer Health and Safety Advice

Wireless Networks (Wi-Fi) Consumer Health and Safety Advice

The use of wireless devices by consumers is increasing rapidly, yet there is concern in the scientific community that this technology could have adverse side effects. Download our flyer for the facts and recommended precautions, and follow the links below for more information.microwave-transmission-tower

Download Flyer:  All text in blue is a hot link, takes you directly to the respective link.

A4 Flyer (Web-quality PDF – 228kb)
A4 Flyer (Print-quality PDF wth bleed for printing – 688kb)

More Information:

Wireless Devices, Standards, and Microwave Radiation in the Education Environment – Gary Brown, October 2000.

The BioInitative Report

Energyfields.org – Council on Wireless Technology

The Collaborative on Health and the Environment

H.E.S.E Project

International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety

Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones

Mast Sanity

Powerwatch

EM-Radiation Research Trust

Thank you to EMF Facts Consultancy for providing these empowering facts.

Where can I get more information?  You can copy / paste any URL into your search engine.
Visit the following websites to obtain further information including the reports referred to in this brochure.
http://www.bioinitiative.org
http://www.emfacts.com/wlans.html
http://www.energyfields.org
http://www.healthandenvironment.org
http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/
http://www.icems.eu
http://www.iegmp.org.uk
http://www.mastsanity.org
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/rf/wifi.asp
http://www.radiationresearch.org

Leave a comment

Filed under antenna, cell phone, cell tower, EMF, family, Health, mast, microwave, mobile, schools

Important Antenna Victory in Los Angeles

Important Antenna Victory in Los Angeles
From: Doug Loranger
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:19 PM
Subject: Important Antenna Victory in Los Angeles
By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
Updated: 02/23/2009 11:42:41 PM PST http://www.dailynews.com/ci_11770802

Residents of the View Park/Windsor Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles won an important victory at the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission on February 18 (see article from LA Daily News below). While T-Mobile can still appeal to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors the 3-2 vote to deny a permit for a wireless facility proposed for the rooftop garage on a building hosting a CVS pharmacy, the victory is particularly significant because it marks the debut of a regional Southern California coalition, Residents Engaged Against Cell Towers (REACT), who successfully mobilized for the Feb. 18 hearing.microwave-tower-golden-sky

Organizations involved in this regional coalition include residents from Los Angeles, San Diego, Glendale, Pasadena, Tarzana, Burbank, Mar Vista, Altadena, Baldwin Hills Estates, Sherman Oaks, Ladera Heights, Scripps Ranch, Hacienda Heights, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Mission Viejo, Irvine, Rancho Santa Fe, and Escondido.

Along with the Coalition to Regulate Antennae Siting ( http://www.safeantenna.org ) in New York City, Southern California is one of the current hotbeds of activity on this issue working to take the fight to the national level.
————————————————————————————————————-

This story may make you consider giving up milk altogether. The story mentions ‘using clean electrical energy from the grid’, well good luck with that far fetched idea! There would also be a big question mark about the cleanliness of the energy as it leaves the site, and a very good chance that dangerous high frequency pollution will be caused around the farm. We know that microwaving food damages the quality and goodness, what will it do to the milk?
Martin Weatherall
———————————————
Microwave bulk pasteurization system
By Food in Canada
staff | February 23, 2009
http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/foodincanada/news/foodsafetynews/article.jsp?content=20090223_152601_7028
————————————————————————————————————-
Wi-Fi in School

I had a conversation with the parent representative to the French school board (CSF) today – a fellow parent at my children’s school – she told me that the CSF was going to ask Health Canada and the BC Worker’s Compensation Board to do some of it’s own research on EMR from Wi -Fi. We had an exchange – she said that it was not the CSF’s job to set safety limits. Below is my response to an email she sent out earlier this evening. By the way, she is a doctor.
CK
——————————————————-
From: Carl Katz
Date: 2009/2/25
Subject: Re: Parents Ordi-Santé et Principe de Précaution.
To:
XXXXXXXXX, I do appreciate your proactive activity around this. With respect to your comment this afternoon, you are absolutely correct that it is not CSF’s job to establish safety limits, but it should be its first priority to ensure the safety of all of the children in its care. And ANY doubt should be decided for the benefit of the students. Health Canada has NEVER effectively responded to an emerging health threat – tobacco? Asbestos?.

If you watched the BBC Panorama show (Wi -Fi: A Warning Signal), you would have heard Sir William Stewart, U.K.’s top scientist saying the the WHO (OSM) is wrong – that the whole basis of their safety limits are inadequate to protect the population, especially our children. Same for the German government who has warned all citizens not to use Wi -Fi. Is that not telling? Or Gerd Oberfeld and Henry Lai, who are world reknowned for their research into electromagnetic radiation and biological effects – they both said they would pull their children out of any school that had Wi-Fi. And Olle Johansson of the Karolinska institute in Sweden has found biological effects at radiation levels lower than Wi -Fi. If you have not watched it, here is the link to the show:
http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=132&Itemid=113

In 2002, Lloyds of London and the entire insurance industry excluded health effects from electromagnetic radiation from all liability policies for the wireless industry. This was in response to the work that Dr. George Carlo did with the Wireless Telecommunications Research program from 1993 to 1999 (300 scientists, 28.5 million dollars). Interestingly, the insurance industry has known about and responded to emerging health threats in exactly this manner. They did exactly the same thing for the tobacco industry while tobacco execs continued to say there were no health effects from smoking.

We do not need any more short term epidemiological studies. A two or three year study will not answer the question of what may or will happen after ten or fifteen years – the time it takes for cancerous tumours to present. We now know with certainty, that radiation from Wi-Fi, cellular and cordless home phones cause leakage in the blood brain barrier, breakage of DNA, interruption of intra-cellular communication, and changes in cognitive function (the Stewart Report, 2000).

This is not a “maybe, we need more data” situation. If you don’t believe me, please look at the truly “independent” double blind, peer reviewed research (in other words, not funded by the wireless industry).

We MUST apply the precautionary principle because there is so much evidence (not doubt, evidence). In my opinion, anything less is absolutely reckless.
Respectfully,
Carl Katz
————————————————————————————————————

Cancer Causes Control. 2009 Feb 18. [Epub ahead of print]
Maternal occupational exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields and the risk of brain cancer in the offspring. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19224378 Li P, McLaughlin J, Infante-Rivard C. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 1110 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, QC, H3A 1A3, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the contribution of maternal occupational exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF) shortly before and during
pregnancy on the incidence of childhood brain tumors.

METHODS: A total of 548 incident cases and 760 healthy controls recruited between 1980 and 2002 from two Canadian provinces (Quebec and Ontario) were
included in this study, and their mothers were interviewed. Quantitative occupational ELF-MF exposure in microTesla units was estimated using individual exposure estimations or a job exposure matrix. We used three metrics to analyze exposure: cumulative, average, and maximum level attained.

RESULTS: Using the average exposure metric measured before conception, an increased risk was observed for astroglial tumors (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.0-2.4).

During the entire pregnancy period, a significantly increased risk was observed for astroglial tumors as well as for all childhood brain tumors with the average metric
(OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.1-2.5 and OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.2, respectively). Based on job titles, a twofold risk increase was observed for astroglial tumors (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 0.8-6.3) and for all childhood brain tumors (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.0-5.4) among sewing machine operators.

CONCLUSIONS: Results are suggestive of a possible association between
maternal occupational ELF-MF exposure and certain brain tumors in their offspring. PMID: 19224378
[PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

1 Comment

Filed under antenna, awareness, CA, cancer, cell tower, children, EMF, EMR, France, Health, mast, microwave, schools, USA

UCSD, San Diego Protest against EMF

Cancer cluster at UCSD


Elevator in literature building cited as potential cause; faculty wants more action from administration

By Amanda Ripley
sandiegoprotestemf
A higher-than-normal rate of cancer diagnoses in the building that houses UCSD’s literature department has been the subject of near-constant discussion in recent months, but it’s an issue that’s been on the department’s radar for years.

“We’ve been talking about this in the hallways for almost as long as I’ve been here,” said Anna Joy Springer, a creative-writing professor who’s been teaching at UCSD for six years.

Between 2000 and 2006, faculty and staff who work in the building reported at least eight individual cases of breast cancer. Of these people, two have died. Also reported were one case each of ovarian cancer, carcinoma of the adrenal cortex, adenoid cystic carcinoma of the salivary gland and metastatic cervical cancer. Three people have been diagnosed with benign tumors in the uterus and ovaries.

Employees first noticed the trend in 2002. Years later, in response to a request from the literature department to find out what was causing the unusually high occurrence of cancer, the Chancellor’s office commissioned Dr. Cedric Garland, an epidemiologist from the university’s Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, to conduct a study.
Garland completed his work last June, concluding that women who worked in the literature building had a roughly four- to five-times greater chance of developing breast cancer than if they didn’t work in the building. The report ruled out potential causes, such as the domestic water supply, radioactive chemicals, mold and exposure to carcinogens.

Garland did, however, suggest that there could be a link between the cancer cluster and the building’s electrical and elevator systems.

“Some epidemiological studies and laboratory studies have linked exposure to residential levels of electromagnetic fields from high electrical configurations, such as… step-down electric power transformers, to breast or other cancers,” Garland wrote.

The literature building’s elevator is powered by hydraulic motors that require a surge of energy in order to compress the hydraulic fluid, momentarily increasing the power drawn by the motor to an amount five times greater than normal. These quick surges occur each time the elevator buttons are pushed—every 15 to 60 seconds in the literature building—which, in turn, creates an
electromagnetic field significantly higher than the recommended exposure.

Usually, hydraulic elevator motors are located in the basements of tall office buildings, but because the literature building has no basement, the motors are housed in a small utility room on the first floor.

The geographical center of the cancer cluster happens to be within a few feet of that room. According to Garland’s report, the level of electrical current passing through the literature building’s mechanical and elevator equipment rooms “could be equivalent” to an amount typically used in roughly 123 to 134 houses combined. Previous epidemiological studies have suggested that high-current electrical configurations that serve as few as six to eight residences are associated with higher cancer rates, the report said.

Perhaps even more troubling was the report’s claim that

“moderate exposure to electromagnetic fields interferes with the action of the drug tamoxifen.”

Tamoxifen is commonly prescribed to prevent the recurrence of estrogen-positive breast cancer. So, even if a woman’s breast cancer isn’t related to EMF exposure, if she’s taking tamoxifen to keep the cancer at bay, EMFs could undermine the drug’s effect.

These risks, however, are limited mainly to those who work “in very close proximity to the electrical and elevator equipment rooms.”

The report recommended that university administrators inform anyone who might work in the building of the potential risks and to try to lower the electromagnetic-field levels, either by reconfiguring the elevators or replacing them entirely.

Since the report’s release, Chancellor Marye Ann Fox and Vice Chancellor Paul Drake have met twice with the literature department.

In both meetings, said literature professor Nina Zhiri, the administration’s response was the same: Garland’s report was “inconclusive,” and further studies were necessary before making any major changes to the building. This makes little sense to Zhiri, who noted that Garland had been called the “leading authority” in his field by UCSD’s Department of Environmental Health and Safety when the study was first commissioned. “Scientific certainty is not something that you arrive at quickly,” Zhiri said. “We don’t think that we should wait until there is some ‘conclusive’ report.”

The report did, in fact, address lingering questions about whether electromagnetic fields cause breast cancer, stating that “the role of EMF in breast cancer is still not resolved with final scientific certainty, despite decades of research.” However, Garland went on to say, “the lack of such certainty should not be a reason to avoid taking moderate measures to minimize needless exposure of workers to power frequency electromagnetic fields.”

This policy, known as “prudent avoidance,” was adopted by the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment as a method for protecting workers while further research is being done on the link between cancer and electromagnetic fields. In the eyes of the people who work in the literature department, it’s a simple matter of better safe than sorry. They would prefer that some action be taken before further research is conducted, rather than after.

That further research will come in the form of a study by Dr. Leeka Kheifets, an expert for the World Health Organization on the health effects of EMFs, says Steve Benedict, director of UCSD’s Environment Health & Safety office. In a town-hall meeting last Thursday, Vice Chancellor Drake said that Kheifets’ study “should be done in about three or four weeks, and then we’ll decide what to do.” Benedict this week stretched the time frame to six to eight weeks.

To some in the literature department, the new study looks like little more than a stalling tactic. There are currently posters circulating around the building via e-mail that read, “8 cases of breast cancer and two deaths in the Lit building! UCSD response: stall, wait, deny.” Some have speculated that the Chancellor’s office is hoping the new study will contradict the old one, presumably undermining any lawsuits brought by the women who have been diagnosed with cancer.

Meanwhile, literature department staff want to know whether it’s safe to work in the building. “I think about it all the time,” said one staff member, who asked not to be identified by name, who works within meters of the elevators and can hear the motors turning on and off throughout the day.

However, on Monday night, just before CityBeat’s press deadline, Benedict provided answers to a series of written questions sent late last week to a university spokesperson. Benedict said that as interim measures, the university has shut down one of two elevators identified in Garland’s report (late on Tuesday, a spokesperson said both elevators had been shut down), older motor starting devices have been replaced by newer ones that produce fewer EMFs and the “areas identified by Dr. Garland as being potentially at risk of exposure to EMF were vacated.”

Benedict also noted that Garland’s report states that the highest level of EMFs found in the building “is not prohibited by any known U.S. national exposure standard” and that the “exposure is unlikely to be a principal cause of breast cancer that has been diagnosed in people who have worked in this small area.”

However, the U.S. doesn’t have an exposure standard; Garland based his conclusions on Sweden’s standard and the readings he took in the literature building at times exceeded that standard. Garland also added that “some possibility exists that it could have contributed modestly to risk” and then mentioned the issue of tamoxifen interference.

Many people, especially students, have not read Garland’s report and don’t know to what extent they should be worried about their health and safety. Some faculty members, like Springer, wonder if they should warn each person who enters the building of the potential risk. Others, like Zhiri, worry about what the department should tell new employees, or whether to tell them at all. The issue of tamoxifin interference is especially thorny—the last thing the department wants to be asking new hires about is their medical history.

“It would make sense to me if alternate space was found for us to hold all the business of the department until the issue was resolved,” Springer said. “I think that’s the only ethical thing to do at this point.”

The administration feels differently. During Thursday’s town-hall meeting, when asked about the building, Fox said, “Right now, we don’t have sufficient evidence to justify moving the faculty or the staff out of [the building].” Vice Chancellor Drake added that UCSD simply doesn’t have “a building sitting ready that could take not only the staff, but the faculty, graduate students, etcetera, which would be some 90 people. So there’s really no way we can do that.”

There is, in fact, at least one empty building on campus. In a campus-wide e-mail dated Feb. 12, UCSD’s music department announced the completion of the new Conrad Prebys Music Center. The department has not yet moved into the new building but plans to do so at the end of this week. And Springer suggested the possibility of finding temporary off-campus facilities for literature-department employees. “I see neuroscience and other departments renting offices across the street in that commercial area,” she said, “and that’s why it seems like it’s also about cost.”

Drake spoke about the issue of cost at the town-hall meeting. “If a conclusive study comes back that shows that building does cause cancer, we will get people out of there, I assure you. But we cannot do that on a fiscally responsible basis until we have that proof, and so far we don’t.”

The administration has offered to find new offices for a select few employees, who, in Drake’s words, “feel particularly threatened or distressed, or under pressure from this situation.” Given what the literature department sees as an unacceptable lack of action by the administration, many employees have begun to take matters into their own hands. For several weeks there have been signs on both elevators, asking students and teachers to take the stairs whenever possible. But the signs don’t give a reason for the request and are often ignored. Zhiri said a building committee that she chairs would like to make it so that the elevators require a key to operate, but that would be a “bureaucratic nightmare,” she said.

“And all of this costs money, of course,” Zhiri added—money that the department doesn’t have.

Employees have also been spending less time in their offices. Graduate student Sabrina Starnam holds office hours at a coffee shop on campus, with a sign on her table that reads “Cancer Free Office Hours.” There’s been talk of holding classes elsewhere, though at the moment, students continue to attend workshops and seminars in the building’s classrooms.

Meanwhile, an online petition has been circulating that reads, “WE, the undersigned, support the Faculty, Staff, Students and Workers in the Literature Building, and ask that the University provide them with a safe workplace.” So far, the petition has almost 1,000 signatures from concerned students, parents and friends. And on Tuesday, Feb. 17, the department held a teach-in on UCSD’s Library Walk. Zhiri said the plan was to inform the campus community about the situation and circulate the petition.

While faculty members and staff have been spending more and more of their time talking about the issue, drafting letters to the administration and planning protests, they have been spending less of their time teaching, researching and writing. “It would help us do our jobs,” Springer said, “if we believed deeply that we were supported and our health was valued.”

Though the literature department is generally unhappy with the administration’s actions, Zhiri says that in recent weeks, “there has been a marked effort toward transparency.” Members of the department now meet regularly with the Environmental Health and Safety office and are being updated on what’s being done to deal with the situation.

* Published: 02/17/2009 by Amanda Ripley

Leave a comment

Filed under awareness, EMF, Health, mast, microwave, schools, sensativity, WiFi

You choose

The 20/20 and Larry King videos are viewable at the very top of the page.

Blood Analysis VIEW VIDEO before and after a 15 minute cell call. So much oxygen depletion from red blood cells that it takes about 2 hours for an adult body to recover.

cell-phone-radiation

Leave a comment

Filed under awareness, cell phone, cell tower, children, EMF, EMR, family, mast, protect, schools, sensativity, toddlers, tower