Category Archives: USA





The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on Tuesday, June 2, to actively seek and support federal legislation to repeal portions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that limit the authority of state and local governments to regulate cell towers and related wireless facilities on the basis of their health and environmental effects.

The vote follows similar action taken by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Board of Education at its May 26, 2009 meeting.

The motion by Supervisors Zen Yaroslavsky, Michael D. Antonovich and Mark Ridley-Thomas cited “ongoing debate within the scientific community and among governing bodies throughout the world regarding how thoroughly the long-term health effects of low-frequency electromagnetic and radio-frequency emissions are understood” and “questions . . . regarding how well the existing regulations established by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] protect more vulnerable populations such as school-aged children, and how well they protect against the cumulative effect of radio-frequency emissions on people who live or work in close proximity to multiple cellular facilities.”

While the City Council of Portland, Oregon passed a resolution in May of this year calling on the FCC to work with the Food & Drug Administration and other federal health and environmental agencies to revisit and update studies on the potential health effects of wireless facilities like cell towers, Los Angeles is the first major local government to directly take on the federal preemption of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

“This marks a major step forward on this issue,” said Doug Loranger of the new nationwide organization Coalition for Local Oversight of Utility Technologies (CLOUT), which is actively seeking to change federal law governing cell towers. “For almost 15 years, local planning and zoning officials, City Council members and Supervisors across the United States have been telling residents concerned about cell tower proliferation that their hands are tied by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 when it comes to health and environmental concerns. We finally have an elected body of one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country willing to say ‘enough is enough’ and take a stand to change this situation.”

The Supervisors’ motion also calls for changes to the California Public Utilities Code (CPUC), which currently limits the authority of local governments in the State of California to regulate wireless facilities in public rights of way. These limitations have provided a convenient loophole for wireless carriers to install antennas on light and utility poles in residential neighborhoods that would otherwise be off-limits to these types of facilities.

“We literally have had people wake up to find cell towers installed directly in front of their homes with no notification or public hearings under the current CPUC regulations,” said Sally Hampton of Los Angeles, who organized the regional Southern California coalition Residents Engaged Against Cell Towers (REACT), which is part of CLOUT. “Thanks to today’s action, the word will start to get not only to our elected representatives in Washington, D.C., but also to those in Sacramento, that laws need to be changed to give local governments more authority to regulate the proliferation of wireless facilities. We applaud the leadership of the Los Angeles County Supervisors, <who collectively represent nearly 10 million citizens>, and call on all local municipalities to join forces with Los Angeles to urge the Congress to repeal those sections of the 1996 TCA which preempts local control and prevents local governments from considering health
effects. Local officials need the power to protect citizens and homeowners and to support smart deployment of better technologies that will benefit all Americans for years to come.”

As part of its efforts on this issue, the Board of Supervisors will be filing comments consistent with its motion with the FCC with regard to National Broadband Policy. Elected officials and members of the public around the U.S. have until June 8 to submit comments to the FCC on the rollout of broadband infrastructure, which forms part of President Obama’s multi-billion-dollar stimulus package.

On April 2 of this year, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution on Health Concerns Associated with Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) by a vote of 559 to 22 (there were 8 abstentions), which includes the position that wireless telecommunications facilities should not be placed in proximity to schools, places of worship, retirement homes, and health care institutions.

Meanwhile, in the United States it remains illegal for local governments to prevent the placement of wireless facilities near schools and other sensitive locations because of the Telecommunications Act of 1996’s federal preemption.

For more information, including links to the LAUSD, City of Portland and European Parliament resolutions, visit CLOUT’s website at


Leave a comment

Filed under EMF, tower, USA, WiFi

EPA finds greenhouse gases pose a danger to health

EPA finds greenhouse gases pose a danger to health
AP (Associated Press)EPA CLIMATE

* EPA declares cleaner air Play Video Climate Change Video:EPA declares cleaner air 11 News Houston
* Sweeping Economic Effects? Play Video Climate Change Video:Sweeping Economic Effects? FOX News
* Group Praises Obama’s Efforts Against Pollution Play Video Climate Change Video: Group Praises Obama’s Efforts Against Pollution WJZ 13 Baltimore

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 17, 5:07 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The EPA on Friday declared that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases sent off by cars and many industrial plants “endanger public health and welfare,” setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws. The action by the Environmental Protection Agency marks the first step toward requiring power plants, cars and trucks to curtail their release of climate-changing pollution, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said while the agency is prepared to move forward with regulations under the Clean Air Act, the Obama administration would prefer that Congress addressed the climate issue through “cap-and-trade” legislation limiting pollution that can contribute to global warming.

Limits on carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases would have widespread economic and social impact
, from requiring better fuel efficiency for automobiles to limiting emissions from power plants and industrial sources, changing the way the nation produces energy.

In announcing the proposed finding, Jackson said the EPA analysis “confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations” and warrants steps to curtail it.

While EPA officials said the agency may still be many months from actually issuing such regulation, the threat of dealing with climate change by regulation could spur some hesitant members of Congress to find another way to address the problem.

“The (EPA) decision is a game changer. It now changes the playing field with respect to legislation
,” said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., whose Energy and Commerce subcommittee is crafting broad limits on greenhouse emissions. “It’s now no longer doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between regulation and legislation.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee responsible for climate legislation, said EPA’s action is “a wake-up call for Congress” — deal with it directly through legislation or let the EPA regulate.

Friday’s action by the EPA triggered a 60-day comment period before the agency issues a final endangerment ruling. That would be followed by a proposal on how to regulate the emissions.

The agency said in its finding that “in both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem” and that carbon dioxide and five other gases “that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”

The EPA concluded that the science pointing to man-made pollution as a cause of global warming is “compelling and overwhelming.” It also said tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change.

The EPA action was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling two years ago that said greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and must be regulated if found to be a danger to human health or public welfare

The Bush administration strongly opposed using the Clean Air Act to address climate change and stalled on producing the so-called “endangerment finding” demanded by the high court in its April 2007 ruling.

The court case, brought by Massachusetts, focused only on emissions from automobiles. But it is widely assumed that if the EPA must regulate emissions from cars and trucks, it will have no choice but to control similar pollution from power plants and industrial sources.

Congress is considering imposing an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions along with giving industry the ability to trade emission allowances to mitigate costs. Legislation could be considered by the House before the August congressional recess.

In addition to carbon dioxide, a product of burning fossil fuels, the EPA finding covers five other emissions that scientists believe are warming the earth when they concentrate in the atmosphere: Methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).


On the Net:

The Environmental Protection Agency:

Leave a comment

Filed under awareness, CA, environment, global warming, public safety, USA


The American Trial Lawyer
Is Justice for Sale or Has it Been Bought?

Illusion & Escape by Dr. George Carloenergy-fields-around-planet


The ecological balance of a planet already under siege. It is potentially more serious than global warming – and already claiming lives. So, you say: “If this technology is so dangerous, why isn’t it portrayed that way in the news? Do we not have scientists who study this to make the technology safe? Do we not have regulations and government policing to keep us safe? Do we not have the news media to keep us informed? And do we not have lawyers who will advocate on our behalf to ensure that we are treated fairly?”

Yes, we have all of those protections. But they are not working to protect us. Catastrophic trouble lies ahead if corrective steps are not taken to stem the tide of danger of wireless technology.

How Cell Phones Penetrate

When cell phones were first proposed for consumer use in 1983, the fledgling wireless communications industry convinced the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that pre-market safety testing was not necessary. The rationale: cell phones were like little microwave ovens that operated at power levels too low to cause heating. Thus, because cell phones could not be used to cook food, they were deemed safe by the FDA. This core mistake in1983 became the foundation for a quarter-century public health threat that increases daily.’ By 1993, there were 15 million Americans using cell phones – 25 million people worldwide.

A Florida lawsuit raised public questions about cell phones causing brain cancer, which caught the industry, the FDA, and the media by surprise. This prompted congressional hearings that led to a deal between the cell phone industry and the FDA to research the issue. The supposed goal would be to fill data gaps caused by the 1983 decision to forego pre-market safety testing.

Illustration 1. The degree of penetration of the near-field plume from a cell phone antenna (illustrated in image at left) into the skull varies, based on a number of factors including frequency, wave-length, field-intensity and a person’s age. The MRI models above show radio frequency radiation field penetrations by varying age while other variables are held constant.

Now, fifteen years later, more than 280 million Americans will use cell phone at some point in 2008, with more than four billion users worldwide. The cell phone has become ubiquitous among all demographic groups – including young children.

A cell phone held close to the head (as most are) allows electro-magnetic radiation to penetrate deep into brain tissue. This is where the problem begins. (See illustration I) Indeed, the primary concern 10 years ago was the penetrating near-field plume – the area within six inches of the antenna. However, that concern is now one of many, as ambient radiation has become a very serious problem for those who are electro-sensitive or otherwise symptomatic with conditions involving cell membrane sympathetic stress.

Every cell phone must be connected to a base-station antenna to be functional. Each connection results in a biologically active electromagnetic directional wave, which combines with the waves from other cell phones and wireless devices to form a mesh of information carrying radio waves (ICRW) from which there is little escape for most people. The mechanism of harm perpetrated by ICRWs is biological and therefore carries no threshold for effects – in other words, there is no absolutely safe level of exposure. All cells, tissues and organs in the range of exposure are therefore triggered, and the difference between people who develop symptoms and those who do not is related to factors such as age, state of wellness, gender and genetics.

Peer-reviewed studies from around the world show cell phones and other wireless technologies ranging from WiFi in schools to transmission towers in neighborhoods, cause adverse biological effects and disease. (See Side-Bar I: Key Cell Phone Disease Causation References). ICRW and other types of electromagnetic radiation can act both as direct causes of disease and as indirect antagonists or synergens, facts already known in the scientific community even as more precise scientific information is gathered.

Cause and effect (a pathological mechanism of harm) are now linked. Cumulative science has laid the groundwork to prove medical causation under stringent Daubert standards. Indeed, scientists and clinicians who study the health effects of wireless technology have shifted the debate from whether cell phones cause health problems (they do) to the urgent need for remedies than can control emerging medical problems affecting millions daily. A profound urgency exists because the most vulnerable are precisely the demographic groups most likely to need assistance: the young, the sick, the elderly and the poor.

Epidemiological studies show significant increased risk of benign and malignant brain tumors, acoustic neuroma, and melanoma of the eye and salivary gland tumors after ten years of cell phone use. Some studies suggest that even short-term use statistically increases cancer risk. Neurological disease and autism have also been linked to wireless radiation exposure.

Patients with electro-hypersensit

ivity, for example, cannot work in environments with any type of electromagnetic radiation exposure- areas absent exposure are almost nonexistent. These people have become permanently unemployable. Thus, the effects of cell phone radiation have drifted into areas of fundamental public policy, lifestyle choices, politics, health care, national security and personal economic viability. Some governments around the world-but not ours-have begun to take steps to protect vulnerable populations. (See Side-Bar 4: Governments Recommending Precautions for Mobile Phone Use Among: Young: People)

The tragedy is that most of the suffering is probably avoidable. The problems associated with electromagnetic
radiation health effects have been known for at least three decades, and technological solutions have been available, but not implemented, for at least twenty years. (See Side Bar 5: The Story of J. G. Bradv)

Illustration 2. Disrupted red blood cell intercellular communication occurs within minutes of exposure to Information Carrying Radio Waves. Red blood cells must be able to sense the location of other blood cells to avoid clumping. Slide at left: prior to cell phone exposure – red cells are functional. Slide at right: after five minutes on a cell phone – red cells are clumped and non-functional.

These devastating and far-reaching effects are not accidents of nature. The expanding telecommunications and internet industries have perpetrated a dangerous fraud upon the public, withholding information that would expose the risk that cell phones pose to humans and the environment, and suppressing technologies that arguably are capable of saving lives. The telecommunications and internet industries have enlisted an army of public relations, marketing and defense law personnel to apply their skills learned in the tobacco and asbestos wars to an even greater, more sophisticated ruse: the orchestrated campaign of deception that assures the public that telecommunications technology is safe. The stakes are huge: Unlike workers exposed to asbestos or those who chose to smoke, far greater numbers of Americans are vulnerable to the debilitating and harmful effects of cell phone usage, the extent of which may not be revealed for decades to come. (See Side-Bar 6: The Cell Phone Industry Playbook: Controlling Illusion)

The cornerstone of the industry approach: Remove any reference to detrimental cell phone health effects from the scientific and medical communities, as well as public relations and political arenas. According to the industry playbook, the sole issue is public perception- not about public health and safety, or scientific truth. To achieve that end, the industry had found it necessary to alter scientific facts to suit the desired outcome.

(See Side-Bar 7: Data Manipulation: Thumbs on the Scales of Science)

The science is complex, which helps the industry promoting safety of its products to the layperson.  Professional wordsmiths retained by the industry split hairs over complicated scientific concepts, including differences between thermal and non-thermal mechanisms; biological effects and health effects; replication of studies and corroborative research; and weight of scientific evidence versus proper scientific judgment. Lay journalists cannot hope to investigate such complicated nuances, and public reports of harm are so watered down that readers, listeners and viewers are left with the impression that “the issue is being looked into and so far, there are no problems.” Not surprisingly, consumers continue to buy.

The industry’s most obvious motivation is to maintain sales, as companies work on narrow profit margins. A one or two percent reduction in market share can devastate the bottom line of even the largest players. Raising the specter of health risks would obviously be bad for business.

Moreover, cell phone leaders must now confront another challenge: the insurance carriers’ decision to exclude health risk claims from product liability policies marketed to the wireless industry. Beginning in 2002, major insurers excluded health risks from cell phone usage as a covered loss under policies sold to the industry. (See Side-Bar 8: Chronology of Key Cell Phone Personal Injury Litigation).

Insurers are well aware of potential losses associated with ongoing product liability and personal injury litigation against the cell phone industry, as well as claims of injured workers. (See Side-Bar 9: Workers’ Compensation Cases; Side-Bar 10: Key Legal Precedents)

Wireless companies want to avoid exposure as target defendants, preferring to blend into the burgeoning information technology and internet industries. In 1999, the main cell phone industry trade association, the Cellular Telephone Industry Association, changed its name to the Cellular Telephone and lnternet Association, allowing companies such as Microsoft and Apple to join. In 2005, mobile telephone entities moved into the entertainment industry – exemplified by the joint venture between Sprint and the Disney Corporation that brought Disney into the ranks of wireless signal carriers. Cafe companies such as Starbucks Coffee and Panera Bread have formed wireless lnternet partnerships with industry leaders. These moves have diluted the potential liability for cell phone companies. These actions were intended to reduce the potential exposure of cell phone companies, and have spawned an institutional arrogance reflecting an apparent belief in their own invincibility.

However, it remains to be seen whether Microsoft, Apple, Disney, Starbucks and others will agree to carry the burden of the industry’s self-inflicted liability. Another part of the corporate strategy encourages manipulation of the consumer market, such as the effort to convince parents and teachers that WiFi wireless access at school will improves education – with no evidence These companies prey on ill or poorly informed consumers to support the claim. Ironically, the pathology associated who can be swayed by unscientific and improbable personal with ICRW is consistent with learning deficiencies linked testimonials and other wild claims about miracle cures.  Cell phones as personal safety devices also fraud perpetrated by these ‘helpful’ companies is a selling point, despite the absence of data proving ing to public health as the ruse promoted by the wireless that any personal security provided by cell phones out- weighs the associated health risks.

Manipulating science for profit is not new to the wireless industry. A gamut of marketing companies and other
“grass roots” participatory businesses sell numerous products, including pendants and stick-on tabs, with unsupportable claims to protect consumers against the dangers of cell phones and other electro-magnetic radiation emitting devices.

The science of prevention and therapeutic intervention regarding cell phone-related diseases is still in its infancy, but one aspect is abundantly clear: no panacea yet exists to address the problem. Recent studies indicate that desperate consumers are being deceived to purchase bogus protective devices that not only give a false sense of security, but also improper use of sham products and may lead to serious disease relapses.  Because these businesses are person to person, they escape regulation by the Federal Trade Commission or other agencies.

Thus far, the cell phone industry has avoided accountability for the health and environmental damages caused by their devices and supportive infrastructure, leaving the injured without recourse. The system is not working.

Because the FDA granted the industry a variance on the requirement for premarket safety, it is unlikely that that the FDA will take further steps at protecting the public. Moreover, with respect to radiation-emitting devices, the FDA has very narrow regulatory authority: they can require pre-market testing; they can pursue post-market surveillance; they can ban products if post-market surveillance identifies problems. With upwards of 280 million Americans using cell phones, a cell phone ban is politically infeasible.

Consumers cannot look to the FDA, which is not directly involved in the safety regulation of cell phones at all. What about the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)?

The wireless industry controls it. The revolving door between the FCC and the wireless industry has not stopped. Indeed, both industry and the FCC cite the lap between the two as a major reason for the tremendous growth and “success” of the wireless communications. They look after each other’s back.

In a recent cell phone-brain cancer suit in the District of Columbia Superior Court, the FCC entered an amicus brief in support of the cell phone industry’s motion for dismissal. The FCC had never before become involved in state or federal court proceedings regarding cell phone dangers; the amicus brief signals a new level of bold interference by the federal agency to advance the agenda of an industry it is suppose to oversee. Further, the cell phone industry routinely misrepresents as safety standards” the
emission guidelines for wireless radiation promulgated under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and administered through the FCC. The FCC has no safety authority. Thus, no safety standards exist to protect consumers from the dangers of cell phones and other wireless devices.

To date, the cell phone industry has responded to litigation by raising the shield of federal preemption, preventing fact finders from hearing scientific and medical causation testimony based on data generated after 1999. “IN the ABSENCE of sound FEDERAL GUIDELINES or vigilant regulation, LITIGATION is the ONLY option to COMPENSATE victims and deter the continued disingenuous and DANGEROUS behavior of the WIRELESS industry.”

In matters of public policy involving consumer protection, litigation and legislation has sometimes lagged in addressing rapid technological advances. Such is the case with wireless technology. To date, remedial options short of these “last resorts” have failed.

For half a century, questions have been raised about the safety of wireless devices, and for the past fifteen years, the debate has occurred in public. The passage of time has only exacerbated the public health threat, as exposure to dangerous electromagnetic fields has dramatically increased the risks with no corresponding mitigation. Instead, many consumers now face mounting medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering attributable to wireless technology.

In the absence of sound federal guidelines or vigilant regulation, litigation is the only option to compensate victims and deter the continued disingenuous and dangerous behavior of the wireless industry. Medical science supports personal injury litigation for cell phone-related brain tumors, parotid gland tumors, acoustic neuroma, eye cancer, neurological disorders, electro-hypersensitivity and autism.

Product liability actions will achieve several goals: compensate injured consumers; stop detrimental industry practices that victimize consumers; and put an end to fraudulent promotion of products that do not protect consumers from various types of electromagnetic radiation.

In addition to compensating victims, there is an urgent need to apply political pressure to the legislative and executive branches of government, which will result in long term solutions that ensure the health and safety of future generations. Laws should be enacted to place health warnings on cell phones and wireless devices, as well as warning signs in public spaces that carry WiFi and other wireless signals.

The Telecommunications Act must be amended to include victims’ compensation provisions; incentives for the development and commercialization of technologies to promote users from harmful electromagnetic radiation; and civil rights provisions to promote environmental and health risk protection for homeowners in communities where cell phone base stations and other wireless infrastructure are constructed.

The mobile telephone industry has been successful in manipulating scientific data, public opinion and public
information to protect their interests, promote the unbridled sale of their technologies and create the illusion of safety – all to the detriment of public health.

Here is how they do it.

Public relations “hit squads’ are permanently in place in trade associations and corporate offices to monitor scientific, medical and consumer information for consistency with industry i n t m s .

When “problems” are identified, the public impact of detrimental information is altered first through public statements and written press.  The media are ‘managed’ by advertising dollars. Second level ‘management’ is achieved through control of scientific research and scientific organizational channels.

Key watch words that signal industry manipulation:

o Expert panel reports say.. …
o Third party opinions are….
o The ‘weight of scientific evidence indicates …..
o The studies need to be ‘replicated’ before …..
o The ‘safety guidelines’ are being met
o More research is needed before.. …
o Scientists around the world agree that …..
Industry institutions collaborates:
o The Word Health Organization
o The American National Standards Institute
o The IEEE – Institute for Electronics and Electrical
o The International Commission on Non-Ionizing
Radiation Protection
o The American C a m M i y
o The Bioelectromagnetic Society – BEMS
o The Federal Communications Commission
o The Food and Drug Administration

Industry consultants who publicly support industry
o Dr. William Balky – Exponent Consultants
o Dr. Linda Erdreich – Exponent Consultants
o Dr. John MwMer – University of Wisconsin
o Dr. Mickwl Repachioli – University of Rome (Italy)
o Dr. Bernard Veyret – University of Bourdeax (France)
o Dr. Michael Thun – American Cancer Society
o Dr. Joseph Roti Roti – Washington University (St. Louis)
o Dr. John Boice – International Epidemiology Institute
o Dr. h d o Vmchia – International Committee on Nonionizing
Radiation Protection

Studies funded by the mobile phone industry are more than six times more likely to find “no problem” than studies funded by independent sources. This difference is statistically significant – suggesting the occurrence is not by chance. The following is an example.

In 1995, a young epidemiology student was working as an assistant to a senior scientist when their organization was contracted by an independent group to conduct a case-control study of brain tumors and cell phone use. When the lead investigator passed away before the study was completed, the work continued with the student and was completed in the fall of 1998. The results were peer-reviewed and the report submitted  in compliance with the research contract revealed a statistically significant doubling in risk of rare neuro-epithelial brain tumors among cell phone users.

Between 1999 and 2000, the student forged a relationship with a cell phone industry epidemiologist who had been hired to assist in ‘peer review’ of studies prior to publication.

In late 2000, a paper describing the case-control study was submitted to the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). In that paper, three cases of cancer that had been part of the previous analyses had been eliminated. That change in the number of cancer cases included in the study – a breach of the protocols that had been in place since the study began in 1995 — eliminated the statistical significance
of the link between brain tumors and cell phones.

In the original peer-reviewed report, he also detailed a statistically significant correlation between the side of the head where tumors were located and the side of the head where people reported using their cell phones. Another study from Sweden that same year showed a similar significant risk increase with ipsilateral phone use. The new finding was very damaging to the mobile phone industry, especially since there was another corroborative study. With the three cases of cancer eliminated the statistically significant correlation between the side of the head where the phone was used and the side of the head where the tumor was located also conveniently disappeared. The peer-reviewers at JAMA had no way of knowing about the data manipulation.
In the end, manipulated data were published in a highly reputable peer-reviewed journal. The industry was able to use the paper as a public relations tool. Today, the paper remains prominent in the data package the industry uses advance its position that cell phones pose no health risk.

1 Comment

Filed under awareness, cancer, cell phone, economy, global warming, media, pollution, public safety, schools, USA, WiFi

EPA declares global warming threat to Americans’ health well-being

*** BREAKING NEWS *** BREAKING NEWS *** BREAKING NEWS *** smokestacks_160px

Dear Friends,

EPA formally declares global warming to be a threat to Americans’ health and well-being.

Go to the Green Room to share your views on today’s action. In an historic decision moments ago, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a proposed ruling that global warming pollution “endangers” Americans’ health and well-being.

Today’s action sets the stage for using authority under the Clean Air Act to establish national emission standards for large global warming emitters.

EDF’s deputy general counsel Vickie Patton says that with today’s announcement, “The U.S. is taking its first steps as a nation to confront climate change. EPA’s action is a wake up-call for national policy solutions that secure our economic and environmental future.”

The EPA is now expected to begin developing national emission standards for new motor vehicles and new coal-fired power plants, the nation’s two largest sources of global warming pollution.

Today’s action comes as Congress prepares to take its own historic steps toward enacting a cap on global warming pollution.

Next week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will begin hearings on comprehensive energy and climate legislation and move quickly to a vote on the bill. Chairman Henry Waxman has committed to moving the bill — the American Clean Energy and Security Act — out of committee by Memorial Day.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she intends to bring the bill to the House floor this year.

With EPA’s decision as a backdrop, we will continue our all-out campaign to pressure Congress to pass a cap on America’s global warming pollution as the most effective way to stop global warming and unleash our clean energy future.

Please go to the Green Room to share your thoughts on today’s announcement.

Thanks for your activism and support.


Sam Parry Director of Online Membership and Activism Environmental Defense Fund

Leave a comment

Filed under global warming, media, pollution, public safety, USA

Children and Cell Phones: Where’s ICNIRP?

Children and Cell Phones: Where’s ICNIRP?

The new year brought two fresh initiatives to protect children from cell phone radiation. On January 7, the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) recommended that parents limit their children’s use of mobile phones and, on the same day, the French government announced a series of environmental health proposals which includes a ban on cell phones designed specifically for children younger than six and of advertising that promotes the use of cell phones among those under 12.

In contrast to these actions –and those of Belgium, France, Russia, Sweden and the U.K.– the lackadaisical approach of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is striking. Some 40 countries, many of which have only limited expertise in RF radiation health effects, look to the Commission for advice. Yet, ICNIRP has been silent for ten long years….

Read the whole story at: boys-cell-laptop2

Louis Slesin, PhD
Editor, Microwave News
A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Phone: +1 (212) 517-2800; Fax: +1 (212) 734-0316
E-mail: <>
Internet: <;
Mail: 155 East 77th Street, Suite 3D
New York, NY 10075, U.S.A.

January 23… The new year brought two fresh initiatives to protect children from cell phone radiation. On January 7, the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) recommended that parents limit their children’s use of mobile phones and, on the same day, the French government announced a series of environmental health proposals which includes a ban on cell phones designed specifically for children younger than six and of advertising that promotes the use of cell phones among those under 12.

STUK has now joined its counterpart radiation protection agencies in a number of other European countries —these include Belgium, France, Russia, Sweden and the U.K.— to encourage precautionary policies for the
use of phones by children. Germany’s Office of Radiation Protection (BfS) has also advised that all cell phone users exercise prudence. The U.K. Department of Health was the first to advise caution back in 2000 in response to a recommendation from the Stewart expert panel. The following year, the head of Germany’s BfS advised that, “Parents should keep their children away from this technology as much as possible” (see MWN, J/A01 p.6).

In contrast to all this activity, the lackadaisical approach of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is striking. Some 40 countries, many of which have only limited expertise in RF radiation health effects, look to the Commission for advice. Yet, ICNIRP has been silent for ten long years.

Three members of ICNIRP are associated with the same radiation protection agencies that have recommended caution, but all three appear to be sitting on their hands: Rüdiger Matthes, the vice chair of the commission leads the group on Non-Ionizing Radiation Dosimetry at the BfS; HPA’s Richard
Saunders was the former head of the Non-Ionizing Radiation Effects Group at the U.K.’s Health Protection Agency (HPA) and still works at the HPA parttime; and Tony Swerdlow, the chair of HPA’s Advisory Group on Non-ionizing Radiation. Clearly neither Saunders nor Swerdlow is following the lead of Sir William Stewart, the chairman of the HPA, who has reiterated the need for precaution many times over the years, as he did at last September’s Radiation Research Conference.

ICNIRP’s Bernard Veyret of the University of Bordeaux seems similarly out of step with France’s health department, which, early last year, recommended that children not use cell phones after its Interphone group pointed to tumor risks among long-term users. More recently, Lyon, the country’s second largest city, launched its own advertising campaign with the message: “Just Say No to Cell Phones for Children Under 12.” Nevertheless, Veyret remains silent.

In October, Finland’s Kari Jokela and Sweden’s Maria Feychting, joined the commission. Jokela works at STUK, while Feychting has close ties to the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. Swedish radiation protection officials advocated precaution five years before STUK —since 2004 when one of Feychting’s students, Stefan Lönn, found that long-term cell phone users had higher rates of acoustic neuroma (see also MWN, October 12, 2004). They have repeated this advice a number of times since then. Feychting’s and Jokela’s tenure at ICNIRP has been too short to hold either accountable for the commission’s past inaction; time will tell whether they will push for change.

Some say that ICNIRP should be given some slack because it moves very slowly. ICNIRP’s last guidelines on RF exposures were published in 1998.  How long could it take to write a simple statement urging caution? ICNIRP should follow the lead of its sister group in Moscow: the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP). The Russians issued a warning last spring pointing out that the “potential risk for children’s health is very high.”

They closed with some advice that ICNIRP should take to heart: “It is our professional obligation not to damage the children’s health by inactivity.”

Leave a comment

Filed under EMF, mobile, USA

Warning Against Adverse Health Effects From the Operation of Digital Broadcast

Warning Against Adverse Health Effects From the Operation of Digital Broadcast


Leave a comment

Filed under awareness, EMF, EMR, family, USA

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

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 ( ) 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
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.
From: Carl Katz
Date: 2009/2/25
Subject: Re: Parents Ordi-Santé et Principe de Précaution.
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:

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.
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. 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