Tag Archives: chronic conditions

Does being in denial serve you best?

embrace or deny; you choose and accept responsibility. no blame game.

  • ask ourselves if being in denial about things that hurt us, protect us?
  • if you know you are allergic to peanuts, do you consume or avoid them?
  • when you see proof that cigarettes kill, do you smoke or quit?
  • you know wireless technology is harming you; do you protect yourself or remain frozen (immovable) in denial, by choice?

We are referencing the plethora of wireless devices, technology, satellites 23,000 miles from the earth creating these high level frequencies far beyond the norms of all living matter.

We are proving DNA changes, harmful effects and fatal results.  How many decades do we jeopardize our children and Grands before the FCC etc protect us?

CSea Perkins

EMFJournal creator / moderator



Leave a comment

Filed under ecoWise choices, EMF, environment, harmonizer, protect

Heavy use of cell phones may increase tumour risk: study

Prolonged heavy cell phone use may be linked to brain tumours: decade-long study by Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona.

Scott Olson/Getty Images 2008 Getty Images


Prolonged heavy cell phone use may be linked to brain tumours:  decade-long study Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in  Barcelona. Scott Olson/Getty Images

Interphone study reveiwed 5,100 people diagnosed with brain cancers in 13 countries, including Canada

The most exhaustive investigation ever undertaken into brain cancer risk from cell phones suggests that heavy users may be at an elevated risk of developing the tumors, a finding that is likely to continue fueling health concerns over the popular electronic gadgets.

The study, dubbed Interphone, found that that people who reported chatting on the phones the equivalent of a half an hour a day over 10 years had an elevated risk of a rare and often deadly brain cancer known as glioma, the type that last year felled U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, although the researchers concluded their evidence is not strong enough to link the devices to the disease.

The frequent users had a 40 per cent higher risk of glioma, compared to people who never used the phones, as well as about twice the risk of developing tumors on the same side of their heads where they normally held their mobiles while talking, or where most of the energy emitted by their phones would be absorbed.

The results were based on

Continue reading …

1 Comment

Filed under awareness, cancer, cell phone, children, EMF

Electro sensitivity and Electro hypersensitivity published

Yes, we can mail to the USA, scroll down for payment details. Your bank will issue a money order or bank cheque issued in sterling ££s and the book costs £12 per copy to include postage to North

best wishes
Sarah Dacre


Electro sensitivity and Electro hypersensitivity – A Summary by Michael

Michael Bevington, Chair of Trustees of ES-UK, has written a 43 page book designed primarily for doctors, but also suitable for all of us to present to family, friends, colleagues and MPs, among others. It outlines ES, its symptoms and existing medical tests in 16 pages followed by some 800 references to scientific papers relating to this illness.

this Summary may include the following new aspects.
* = perhaps of the greatest importance

1. This may be the first English overview of ES and EHS since A. & J.
Philips (2006) Electrical Hypersensitivity: A Modern Illness and N.
Irvine (2005) Definition, Epidemiology and Management of Electrical
Sensitivity (see notes 18 and 19, page 17). It is has more extensive
references than either earlier report to the published literature,
especially peer-reviewed studies, with some 800 references.

*2. This may be the first attempt in English to distinguish the three
conditions, ES, EHS and EMF Neurosis. See Section 1 (page 5).

*3. This may be the first attempt to draw together the new techniques
for the diagnosis of EHS using pathological markers developed by
several medical laboratories over the last few years. See Section 4
(page 8).

*4. This may be the first attempt to provide a brief history of medical
research into ES and EHS, including the wide variety of names which
have been used by different governmental classification bodies and in
scientific studies. See Section 10 (page 14).

*5. This may provide the first easily accessible list of international
guidelines, both biological and thermal, including the Building Biology
Evaluation Guidelines, published in English. See Section 11 (page 15).

*6. This may be the first English report on EHS to use the study by
Huttunen et al. (2009) showing spontaneous hand movements apparently
caused by Radio Frequencies. See Section 1A (page 5) and note 4 (page

7. This may be the first accessible printed English summary of Hecht
and Balzer’s review of the developmental stages of EHS. See Section 7
(page 11).

8. This may be the first attempt in English to attempt to elucidate
with references co-morbity with EHS and to show patterns of other
bio-electromagnetic effects including disease associations across the
range of frequencies. See Section 9 (page 13).

9. This Summary includes an extensive and referenced list of many
relevant established mechanisms among the sub-thermal bio-effects of
EMFs. See Section 8 (page 12).

10. This may be the first English publication highlighting studies
showing the prevalence of doctors accepting EHS and ES as medical
conditions. See Section 6 (page 10).

11. This may be the first generalised attempt to explain the inherent
failure of many conscious psychological provocation tests, particularly
on the grounds of failure to define EHS, failure to distinguish between
ES and EHS, failure to distinguish between EHS and EMF Neurosis,
failure to screen effectively people claiming to be EHS, failure to
support conscious or subconscious psychological reactions with
established pathological markers, failure to allow fully for
confounding factors such as latency timings and synergistic causes, and
failure to apply an appropriate statistical analysis if conscious
reactions occur only on as few as 10% of provocations. See Section 6
(page 10).

12. This may be the first attempt in English to outline cost savings to
the NHS in the prompt and correct diagnosis of EHS. See Forward (page

A £10 donation payable to ES-UK, will buy a copy of the book, which
will be mailed to you (UK) please send £12 for mailings to North
America and Australia.

Either make payment via the ES-UK web site internet donation button at
www.es-uk.info and send a confirming email with your preferred mailing
address details, to media@es-uk.info.

Or please mail a cheque payable to ES-UK with your own personal address
details to:

London WC1N 3XX

1 Comment

Filed under EMF

Wide Web of diversions gets laptops evicted from lecture hall



Wide Web of diversions gets laptops evicted from lecture hall

By Daniel de Vise
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 9, 2010; A01

On a windy morning in downtown Washington, a hundred Georgetown Law students gathered in a hall for David Cole’s lecture on democracy and coercion. The desks were cluttered with books, Thermoses and half-eaten muffins.

Another item was noticeable in its absence: laptop computers. They were packed away under chairs, tucked into backpacks, powered down and forgotten.
Cole has banned laptops from his classes, compelling students to take notes the way their parents did: on paper.

A generation ago, academia embraced the laptop as the most welcome classroom innovation since the ballpoint pen. But during the past decade, it has evolved into a powerful distraction. Wireless Internet connections tempt students away from note-typing to e-mail, blogs, YouTube videos, sports scores, even online gaming — all the diversions of a home computer beamed into the classroom to compete with the professor for the student’s attention.

“This is like putting on every student’s desk, when you walk into class, five different magazines, several television shows, some shopping opportunities and a phone, and saying, ‘Look, if your mind wanders, feel free to pick any of these up and go with it,’ ” Cole said.
Professors have banned laptops from their classrooms at George Washington UniversityAmerican University, the College of William and Mary and the University of Virginia, among many others. Last month, a physics professor at the University of Oklahoma poured liquid nitrogen onto a laptop and then shattered it on the floor, a warning to the digitally distracted. A student — of course — managed to capture the staged theatrics on video and drew a million hits on YouTube.

Cole was among the first professors in the Washington region to ban laptops, in the 2006-07 academic year. He found them an “attractive nuisance.” It was a bold decree: Georgetown had only recently begun requiring that first-year law students own laptops, after painstakingly upgrading the campus for wireless Internet access.

Just last week, a colleague of Cole’s unwittingly demonstrated how thoroughly the Internet has colonized the classroom. When Professor Peter Tague told students a canard about Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. stepping down, students promptly spread the news into the blogosphere. Later in class, Tague revealed that the tip was false, part of a lesson on credibility, according to the blog Above the Law.
The laptop computer, introduced in 1981, has become nearly obligatory on campus; some colleges require them. They are as essential to today’s student as a working stereo system was to their parents.
“My laptop lives with me. I’m always on it,” said Madeline Twomey, 20, a George Washington junior.
Twomey has used a computer since age 6 and had her first laptop at 15. She senses a widening generation gap. “Most professors, even at their youngest, they’re in their 30s,” she said. “They don’t understand how much it’s become a part of our lives.”
The ‘cone of distraction’
Professors say they do understand — all too well.
Diane E. Sieber, an associate professor of humanities at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has debated her students on the collegiate conceit of multitasking, the notion that today’s youths can fully attend to a lecture while intermittently toggling over to e-mail, ESPN and Facebook.
“It’s really serialized interruption,” Sieber said. “You start something, you stop it, you do something else, you stop it, which is something you’re doing if you’re switching back and forth between World of Warcraft and my class.”
One recent semester, Siebert tracked the grades of 17 student laptop addicts. At the end of the term, their average grade was 71 percent, “almost the same as the average for the students who didn’t come at all.”
Sieber believes that those students, in turn, divert the attention of the students behind them, a parabolic effect she calls the “cone of distraction.”
José A. Bowen, dean of the Meadows School of the Arts at Southern Methodist University, is removing computers from lecture halls and urging his colleagues to “teach naked” — without machines. Bowen says class time should be used for engaging discussion, something that reliance on technology discourages.

Cole surveyed one of his Georgetown classes anonymously after six weeks of laptop-free lectures. Four-fifths said they were more engaged in class discussion. Ninety-five percent admitted that they had used their laptops for “purposes other than taking notes.”
Even when used as glorified typewriters, laptops can turn students into witless stenographers, typing a lecture verbatim without listening or understanding.

“The breaking point for me was when I asked a student to comment on an issue, and he said, ‘Wait a minute, I want to open my computer,’ ” said David Goldfrank, a Georgetown history professor. “And I told him, ‘I don’t want to know what’s in your computer. I want to know what’s in your head.’ ”

Some early attempts to ban laptops met resistance. In 2006, a group of law students at the University of Memphis complained to the American Bar Association, in vain. These days, the restriction is so common that most students take it in stride.

“I think that a professor’s well within reason to ban laptops,” said Cristina Cardenal, a 20-year-old Georgetown junior. “Professors aren’t stupid. They know what’s going on.” She also happens to believe that the rule benefits students, who should know better than to “pay as much money as we do to sit in a class and read a blog.”

Flipping a switch
Perhaps no college has experienced the good and bad of laptops like Bentley University in Waltham, Mass. In 1985, Bentley was the first college in the nation to require students to own portable computers. By the late 1990s, professors complained of distracted students. In 2000, the college installed a custom-designed system to let professors switch off Internet and e-mail access in their classrooms. They’ve flipped the switch “thousands of times,” said Bentley’s Phillip G. Knutel.

Universities have stopped short of disabling Internet access entirely, which might create a raft of new complaints from professors who routinely ask students to go online in class.

Plenty of professors still allow laptops. Siva Vaidhyanathan, an associate professor of media studies and law at U-Va., generally permits them in his classes. He remembers his own college diversion: reading newspapers surreptitiously on the floor beneath his desk. He believes that, ultimately, it is a professor’s job to hold the class’s attention.

“If students don’t want to pay attention, the laptop is the least of your problems,” he said.

Vaidhyanathan, an Internet scholar, senses a losing battle. In an era of iPhones and BlackBerrys, Internet-ready cellphones have become just as prevalent in classrooms as laptops, and equally capable of distraction. If professors had hoped to hermetically seal their teaching space by banning laptops, they might be about three years too late.

“The question ‘Laptop or not?’ isn’t as big a question as the question of a screen or not,” he said. “And, sitting in front of 200 students, I can’t really enforce a ban on anything.”

Please follow the Post’s Education coverage on FacebookTwitter or our Education and Higher Education pages. Bookmark them!

Leave a comment

Filed under EMF

Cell Phones Can Damage Your Eyes get EMF protection

Though this is a somewhat old article, I know more than a handfull of people having eye problems — at an age when they shouldn`t so… this is particularly for them.

paul doyon

From: Iris Atzmon atzmonh@bezeqint.net


cellular phones

Cell Phones Can Damage Your Eyes

Image : http://www.flickr.com

A recent scientific study identified a link between microwave radiation of the kind emitted by cellular phones and two different kinds of damage to the eye. At least one type of damage apparently never heals.

When the eye is exposed for a prolonged time to microwave radiation, there is large-scale damage to the optical quality of the lens. But there seemed to be a maximum level to this kind of damage, and when the exposure stops, the damage begins to heal.

However, at the same time, a different kind of damage occurs at the microscopic level. Tiny “bubbles” appear on the surface of the lens. This kind of damage reaches no maximum level, but instead accumulates progressively, and it did not heal even after the experiment stopped. It was theorized that the bubbles were caused by friction between cells that were exposed to the radiation.

Bioelectromagnetics July 2005; 26(5):398-405IsraCast July 27, 2005

Dr. Mercola’s Comment:

Electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation from cell phones is a topic that provokes a good deal of controversy. Many experts believe that the radiation is too low-level to cause harm. However, they often base this on an examination of thermal or heat-related effects. The danger from cell phones is far more likely to originate in the low-intensity pulsed microwave radiation that the phones emit.

There is a growing body of evidence that long-term exposure to this kind of cell phone radiation can indeed be a danger. As well as these studies showing they can affect the sensitive cells of your eyes, there has been research indicating that it can cause:Brain cancer Tumor growth on the auditory nerve Possibly Alzheimer’s disease Many other potential problems

Fortunately, the danger decreases exponentially the farther the cell phone is from your body. If you have a cell phone, I strongly recommend you use a headset, and keep the phone itself well away from your body.

Although that reduces the radiation risk considerably, some emissions can still travel up the headset wire and into the head. Probably the best solution is to get a cell phone with a good speaker phone and always use it. Keeping the phone as far away from your body is the ideal solution.

For many of you this is simply not very practical, so I recommend attaching the new air cell phone headsets that we have just introduced. If you use a cell phone without the speaker phone feature, then this is simply a must. There is no excuse to not use this technology, which virtually eliminates all the dangers of using a cell phone.

There are also, of course, more commonplace dangers to using cell phones. If you use one while driving your car, you increase your chance of having an accident by up to 400 percent. Worldwide, auto accidents account for 23 percent of all deaths from injury, which comes to over1 million deaths each year. At the same time, cancer, another deadly cell phone risk, has surpassed heart disease in America as the leading cause of death for those under 85. It kills over 1,500 people every day in the United States alone.

Every year, more and more people are switching to cell phones. Many are now using cell phones as their only phone, especially among younger people, who could be exposing themselves to EMF radiation and other risks over a period of decades.

Please avoid having yourself become a statistic. If you use a cell phone at all, wear a headset with a ferrite bead, don’t use the cell phone in the car, and in general try to minimize your cell phone use. Related Articles: Electromagnetic Fields and Cell Phones Are Cell Phones Safe For Your Children?”If Mobile Phones Were a Type of Food, They Simply Would Not be Licensed”

Tags: Damage, Phones

Optimum Cell Phone Protection, compare http://BioMapped.com

Leave a comment

Filed under EMF


by: Andrew Michrowski, Ph.D.

What are the issues, the second-hand effects, and the standards for the wireless technologies?
Life on earth has evolved amidst a broad band of electromagnetic frequencies, which originate from throughout the universe. By 1980, environmental exposure to artificial, repetitive or random signals in the radiofrequency / microwave band had risen dramatically – by more than a trillion times, mostly for military technology.

Since 1980, mostly for newly-introduced commercial applications, the average “second-hand” exposure in Southern Canada has risen from about 0.005 microWatt/cm2 to the current background environmental range of 0.4 to 100.0 µWatt/cm2. We note an 8 to 20,000-fold increase with peaks in downtown Toronto and some centres, including Brantford and Mississauga.

About 100 square kilometres in Southern Ontario have environmental broadband radiofrequency and microwave power emission exposures during timeframes that can exceed the Health Canada Safety Code 6 exposure limit of approximately 0.6 to 1 milliWatt/cm2 (600 – 1,000microWatt/cm2). Such illegal irradiation coverage can be expected to rise exponentially to several hundred square kilometres in both Ontario and Quebec by the end of this decade, on a more persistent basis, as more and more wireless technologies are approved by governments and marketed. Note that individuals within such exposed zones may experience a continual body temperature rise, with time, (but actually “feel” colder, and may seek greater warmth).

Read more…


This page is currently under construction. It will be finished shortly.

Please follow these links for comprehensive information on EMFs. The BioInitiative Report and  WEEP Video Forum

Thank you for your patience.

Leave a comment

Filed under EMF

Neuroscience For Kids The Blood Brain Barrier (“Keep Out”)

As seen at http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bbb.html

More than 100 years ago it was discovered that if blue dye was injected into the bloodstream of an animal, that tissues of the whole body EXCEPT the brain and spinal cord would turn blue.

To explain this, scientists thought that a “Blood-Brain-Barrier” (BBB) which prevents materials from the blood from entering the brain existed. More recently, scientists have discovered much more about the structure and function of the BBB.

Mitigate EMF

Mitigate EMF

Anatomy of the BBB
 The BBB is semi-permeable; that is, it allows some materials to cross, but prevents others from crossing. In most parts of the body, the smallest blood vessels, called capillaries, are lined with endothelial cells. Endothelial tissue has small spaces between each individual cell so substances can move readily between the inside and the outside of the vessel. However, in the brain, the endothelial cells fit tightly together and substances cannot pass out of the bloodstream. (Some molecules, such as glucose, are transported out of the blood by special methods.)EMFchildren2

 Glial cells (astrocytes) form a layer around brain blood vessels and may be important in the development of the BBB. Astrocytes may be also be responsible for transporting ions from the brain to the blood.

Functions of the BBB
The BBB has several important functions:

1.Protects the brain from “foreign substances” in the blood that may injure the brain.
2.Protects the brain from hormones and neurotransmitters in the rest of the body.
3.Maintains a constant environment for the brain.
General Properties of the BBB
1.Large molecules do not pass through the BBB easily.
2.Low lipid (fat) soluble molecules do not penetrate into the brain. However, lipid soluble molecules, such as barbituate drugs, rapidly cross through into the brain.
3.Molecules that have a high electrical charge are slowed.

The BBB can be broken down by:
1.Hypertension (high blood pressure): high blood pressure opens the BBB.
2.Development: the BBB is not fully formed at birth.
3.Hyperosmolitity: a high concentration of a substance in the blood can open the BBB.
4.Microwaves: exposure to microwaves can open the BBB.
5.Radiation: exposure to radiation can open the BBB.
6.Infection: exposure to infectious agents can open the BBB.
7.Trauma, Ischemia, Inflammation, Pressure: injury to the brain can open the BBB.

Circumventricular Organs
There are several areas of the brain where the BBB is weak. This allows substances to cross into the brain somewhat freely. These areas are known as “circumventricular organs”. Through the circumventricular organs the brain is able to monitor the makeup of the blood. The circumventricular organs include:

Pineal body: Secretes melatonin and neuroactive peptides. Associated with circadian rhythms.
Neurohypophysis (posterior pituitary): Releases neurohormones like oxytocin and vasopressin into the blood.
Area postrema: “Vomiting center”: when a toxic substance enters the bloodstream it will get to the area postrema and may cause the animal to throw up. In this way, the animal protects itself by eliminating the toxic substance from its stomach before more harm can be done.
Subfornical organ: Important for the regulation of body fluids.
Vascular organ of the lamina terminalis: A chemosensory area that detects peptides and other molecules.
Median eminence: Regulates anterior pituitary through release of neurohormones.
BBB from the Society for Neuroscience.

Leave a comment

Filed under cancer, children, disease, EMF, environment, family, Health