This information contained within this text, audio and video blog is to educate, inform, and provide solutions about the dangers of ElectoMagnetic Pollution from cell phones, cell towers, computers, home radiation and much more.
The study, sponsored by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, an industry group representing the makers of cell phones, was conducted by scientists from the Karolinska Institute and Uppsala University in Sweden and from Wayne State University in Mich., and is considered to be the most comprehensive ever done, The Independent reported. The study indicates that during laboratory exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely affected,” scientists concluded in the study.
The study is being published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium.
Grand Rapids, Michigan Cape Coral, Florida Greece, Athens Norman, Oklahoma Torrance, California Kansas City, Kansas Hungary, Budapest Chesapeake, Virginia Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi, UAE
Cell Tower Radiation is Becoming More and More of a Concern to People Part 1
http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html
The industrial recession has influenced a large amount of folk in the U.S. In lots of ways.
You have possibly felt it too. What you are about to read is the way the recession can indirectly affect the condition of many school kids round the country. As the budgets of faculties have reduced, cash-strapped college directors are on the lookout for alternative sources that will let them continue providing the basic desires of their colleges, like textbooks and copy machines. Mobile service suppliers have come to their rescue, bringing an improbable and questionable source of funds cell telephone towers. College grounds, especially those in home areas, are ideal locations for cell telephone towers. Routinely a college can earn between $11,000 to $66,000 dollars yearly from lease on a cell telephone tower. It is a straightforward profit making opportunity for college directors as the hire increases three to 4 % a year.
It's good that cell towers will provide more funds for the education of children but is it a fair trade if your kid's health is put at risk? The debate over school-based cell telephone towers isn't something new. Last year, an Oregon district banned the lease towers on college grounds. The LA Unified Faculty District also took similar measures in 2k. There are virtually 262 million mobile telephone users in America and a large amount of folks have recently been warned of the potential hazards of cell telephone use. Even youngsters use cell telephones for hours every day. If cell telephone towers continue to rise on college grounds, the youngsters's increased vicinity to radiation from these towers can only increase the health risks . But colleges are not alone. Churches, surgeries, firehouses, graveyards and even parks are also convenient locations for camouflaged cell towers. If you and your youngsters employ a cell telephone and other wireless services, let me tell you now that cell telephone hazards are in reality.
Whenever you're making a call using your mobile telephone or switch on the TV, your body is snowed under with electromagnetic waves. The presence of electromagnetic waves has increased phenomenally and disturbingly over the previous few years due to wireless services like cell telephones, WiFi, WiMax and BlueTooth.
For most of the people, the damage from daily exposure to electromagnetic radiation will take years or perhaps decades to manifest because there's a lag time of 5 to twenty years for the health effects to become medically clear. Does this mean you have zip to worry about? Ask the residents of Berkeley House, a five-story loft building in Bristol, the UK's ninth most populous town. 2 cell phone masts owned by mobile telephone company Orange and Vodafone were erected on top of the building in 1994. 7 residents became sick with cancer ; 3 have recently died and the other 4 are still fighting the illness. The disease rate among the occupants living on the top floor of the building, where residents from 5 of the 8 residences were influenced, is 20 % ten times the United Kingdom average. In addition, of the 110 Berkeley House residents, 74 have protested of headaches and other health issues.
http://www.emfnews.org
http:/www.emfnews.org/headset.html
Boiling water explodes in a microwave cooker. A tale or not : A 26-year old man made a decision to have a mug of coffee.
He took a cup of water and put it in the microwave to heat it up ( something he had done numerous times before ). It wasn't sure how long he set the timer for, but he would have liked to bring the water to the boil. When the timer shut the stove off, he took away the cup from the stove. As he looked into the cup, he observed that the water wasn't boiling, but instantly the water in the cup "blew up" into his face. The cup stayed intact till he threw it out of his hand but all the water had flown out into his face because of the build up of energy. His entire face is burned and he has initial and second degree burns to his face that might leave scarring! He also could have lost partial sight in his left eye. While at the surgery, the doctor who was attending to him said that this is reasonably common occurrence and water ( alone ) should not ever be heated in a microwave cooker.
If water is heated in this way, something should be placed in the cup to diffuse the energy like a wooden stir stick, teabag, and so on. It is however a much safer choice to boil the water in a teakettle. General Electrical's reply : Microwaved water and other liquids don't always bubble when they reach the boiling point. They can essentially get superheated and not bubble at all. The superheated liquid will bubble up out of the cup when it is moved or when something similar to a spoon or teabag is put into it. To stop this from taking place and causing injury, don't heat any liquid for at least 2 mins per cup. After heating, let the cup stand in the microwave for 30 seconds before moving it or adding anything into it. Reason : What occurs is that the water heats faster than the vapor bubbles can form. If the cup is extraordinarily new then it is doubtful to have little surface scratches within it that supply a place for the bubbles to form. As the bubbles can't form and release some of the heat which has built up, the liquid does not boil, and the liquid continues to warm up well past its boiling point. What then often occurs is the liquid is bumped or jarred, which is enough of a shock to cause the bubbles to quickly form and expel the hot liquid.
The quick formation of bubbles is also why a carbonated libation spews when opened after having been shaken. http;//www.emfnews.org
http://www.emfnews.org http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html
Although the National Research Council's report states that Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) for children are likely to be higher than for adults, let's not get confused.
Because the danger from most land-based portable phones, cell phones and WiFi routers is NOT from the magnetic radiation or the microwave carrier wave for which typical SAR ratings are given on phones. Unless you have massive exposures like you might expect in a microwave oven, these thermal effects are insignificant.
So simply lowering the allowable SAR will NOT make cell phones safer.
Instead, nearly all the biological damage comes from the modulated signals that are carried ON the carrier microwave. These modulated information carrying radio waves resonate in biological frequencies of a few to a few hundred cycles per second, and can stimulate your cellular receptors causing a whole cascade of pathological consequences that can culminate in fatigue, anxiety, neurological decline, and ultimately cancers.
The density of your child's skull is also far less than yours, and therefore their brain is far more susceptible to these information-carrying radio waves.
This Deserves Your SERIOUS Attention
The studies showing the long-term risks of cell phone use are just beginning to come in because cell phone use didn't become widespread until the late 1990s. It typically takes at least 10 to 20 years for cancers to show up, so now is the time when these risks will become apparent.
It is almost as if NO ONE was smoking and then all of a sudden nearly 90 percent of the planet started. Of course, we would not see any spectacular increase in major damage for more than 10 years. It takes time for this damage to accumulate and be noticed.
Unfortunately, most people fail to correlate common symptoms and health problems to their exposure to cell phones and other radio frequencies, perhaps because these conditions can so easily be attributed to other causes (including so-called "unknown" causes) as well. http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html
Take a look at these common illnesses and ailments, which have all been scientifically linked to cell phone information carrying radio waves:
• Alzheimer's, senility and dementia Parkinson's Autism Fatigue Headaches Sleep disruptions
• Altered memory function, poor concentration and spatial awareness
Although cancer and brain tumors are most often cited as the potential health risks from cell phone radiation, as you can see, cancer is not the only, or most common danger that you and your children face.
To learn more go to http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html
http://www.CellphoneLies.com Every day, we're swimming in a sea of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) produced by electrical appliances, power lines, wiring in buildings, and a slew of other technologies that are part of modern life. From the dishwasher and microwave oven in the kitchen and the clock radio next to your bed, to the cellular phone you hold to your ear—sometimes for hours each day—exposure to EMR is growing and becoming a serious health threat.
But there's a huge public health crisis looming from one particular threat: EMR from cellular phones—both the radiation from the handsets and from the tower-based antennas carrying the signals—which studies have linked to development of brain tumors, genetic damage, and other exposure-related conditions.1-9 Yet the government and a well-funded cell phone industry media machine continue to mislead the unwary public about the dangers of a product used by billions of people. Most recently, a Danish epidemiological study announced to great fanfare the inaccurate conclusion that cell phone use is completely safe.10
George Carlo, PhD, JD, is an epidemiologist and medical scientist who, from 1993 to 1999, headed the first telecommunications industry-backed studies into the dangers of cell phone use. That program remains the largest in the history of the issue. But he ran afoul of the very industry that hired him when his work revealed preventable health hazards associated with cell phone use.
In this article, we look at why cell phones are dangerous; Dr. Carlo's years-long battle to bring the truth about cell phone dangers to the public; the industry's campaign to discredit him and other scientists in the field; and what you can do to protect yourself now emf radiation emf dangers cellphone radiation dangers computer electro hypersensitivy EMF protection EMF Protection Shield Dangers of the wireless cell phone, wi-fi and emf age
http://www.emfnews.org
Cell Phones Reach the Market without Safety Testing
To learn more go to http://www.CellphoneLies.comhttp://www.emfnews.org
The cellular phone industry was born in the early 1980s, when communications technology that had been developed for the Department of Defense was put into commerce by companies focusing on profits. This group, with big ideas but limited resources, pressured government regulatory agencies—particularly the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—to allow cell phones to be sold without pre-market testing. The rationale, known as the "low power exclusion," distinguished cell phones from dangerous microwave ovens based on the amount of power used to push the microwaves. At that time, the only health effect seen from microwaves involved high power strong enough to heat human tissue. The pressure worked, and cell phones were exempted from any type of regulatory oversight, an exemption that continues today. An eager public grabbed up the cell phones, but according to Dr. George Carlo, "Those phones were slowly prompting a host of health problems."
Today there are more than two billion cell phone users being exposed every day to the dangers of electromagnetic radiation (EMR)—dangers government regulators and the cell phone industry refuse to admit exist. Included are: genetic damage, brain dysfunction, brain tumors, and other conditions such as sleep disorders and headaches.1-9 The amount of time spent on the phone is irrelevant, according to Dr. Carlo, as the danger mechanism is triggered within seconds. Researchers say if there is a safe level of exposure to EMR, it's so low that we can't detect it.
The cell phone industry is fully aware of the dangers. In fact, enough scientific evidence exists that some companies' service contracts prohibit suing the cell phone manufacturer or service provider, or joining a class action lawsuit. Still, the public is largely ignorant of the dangers, while the media regularly trumpets new studies showing cell phones are completely safe to use. Yet, Dr. Carlo points out, "None of those studies can prove safety, no matter how well they're conducted or who's conducting them." What's going on here? While the answer in itself is simplistic, how we got to this point is complex.
To learn more go to http://www.CellphoneLies.comhttp://www.emfnews.org
TV Interview with Dr. Carlo (Campbell Live, TV3)Dr. Carlo talks about the cell phone industry's marketing towards children and the epidemic projections from cell phone use.George Carlo and Martin Schram are aiming to become information-age Ralph Naders. They ask a question that ought to concern America's 103 million mobile phone users, as well as those who merely come within earshot of these popular devices: Is the wireless future a threat to public health? "Visit any public building, college classroom, courthouse, or commuter train, and look around: You'll see people using not just wireless phones but also wireless laptop computers and miniature palm tops," write Carlo and Schram. "What you won't see are the microwaves that are criss-crossing a confined space where a number of people who are not even using these instruments are bombarded by these waves." It sounds creepy. And Carlo, an epidemiologist who once oversaw a multimillion-dollar research project on health for the cellular industry, believes the news is not good: there may be a link between cell phone use and brain tumors. The research is not conclusive, but Carlo and Schram think it's disturbing enough to warrant government action. Needless to say, the industry that once backed Carlo's work now considers him persona non grata. Due largely to Carlo's coauthorship, Cell Phones is unavoidably a one-sided story. Key business figures didn't agree to interviews. In fact, this might have been a better book if it were written by Schram, with Carlo as one of several major characters rather than a collaborator. Then again, it would lack the passionate advocacy that will draw many readers to it. And even the most skeptical may want to take a few of the simple safety precautions the authors recommend in a concluding chapter, such as wearing a headset or earpiece when using a cell phone, in order to keep a distance from the radiation-emitting antennae. One look at the x-ray photos reproduced in the book, which show how radiation easily penetrates skulls, will give even the most impervious observer second thoughts. One thing is probably certain: This book is a harbinger of litigation. If Carlo and Schram are correct about their concerns, the cellular industry--as unbelievable as it sounds--may go the way of Big Tobacco. --John J. Miller --This text refers to the Hardcover edition. From Publishers WeeklyIn 1993, when the cell phone industry's chief lobbyist hired epidemiologist and pathologist Carlo to refute claims that cell phones, which had never been subjected to premarket testing, cause cancer, no one thought he would discover otherwise. But after six years of exhaustive analysis and scrupulous peer review, the results proved, according to this report, that radiation from a cell phone's antenna can cause the formation of micronuclei red flags for cancer in the brain. Children in particular are more susceptible to the radiation than adults. Carlo reported his findings to the industry and the FDA and advocated for continued research, but both parties still maintain that cell phones are safe. Here, Carlo and syndicated columnist Schram retrace Carlo's scientific undertaking and what they cast as a sinister web of corporate greed and masterful PR "spin" that choked his efforts. Schram provides the primary narrative, with Carlo's insights and recollections scattered throughout, a format that grows repetitive. Despite the captivating story, many consumers won't want to slog through the detailed scientific explanations to get to the bottom-line safety recommendations. Journalists, policymakers and consumer advocacy groups, however, will find this no-holds-barred book extraordinarily informative as they continue investigations of the industry. Agent, Ronald L. Goldfarb. http://www.emfnews.org/cell-phone-radiation-book.html
Scientific Proof Cell Phone Radiation Penetrates a Child's Skull 75% through the Brain Tissue.
A cellular phone is basically a radio that sends signals on waves to a base station. The carrier signal generates two types of radiation fields: a near-field plume and a far-field plume. Living organisms, too, generate electromagnetic fields at the cellular, tissue, organ, and organism level; this is called the biofield. Both the near-field and far-field plumes from cell phones and in the environment can wreak havoc with the human biofield, and when the biofield is compromised in any way, says Dr. Carlo, so is metabolism and physiology.
"The near field plume is the one we're most concerned with. This plume that's generated within five or six inches of the center of a cell phone's antenna is determined by the amount of power necessary to carry the signal to the base station," he explains. "The more power there is, the farther the plume radiates the dangerous information-carrying radio waves."
A carrier wave oscillates at 1900 megahertz (MHz) in most phones, which is mostly invisible to our biological tissue and doesn't do damage. The information-carrying secondary wave necessary to interpret voice or data is the problem, says Dr. Carlo. That wave cycles in a hertz (Hz) range familiar to the body. Your heart, for example, beats at two cycles per second, or two Hz. Our bodies recognize the information-carrying wave as an "invader," setting in place protective biochemical reactions that alter physiology and cause biological problems that include intracellular free-radical buildup, leakage in the blood-brain barrier, genetic damage, disruption of intercellular communication, and an increase in the risk of tumors. The health dangers of recognizing the signal, therefore, aren't from direct damage, but rather are due to the biochemical responses in the cell.
Here's what happens:
Cellular energy is now used for protection rather than metabolism. Cell membranes harden, keeping nutrients out and waste products in.
Waste accumulating inside the cells creates a higher concentration of free radicals, leading to both disruption of DNA repair (micronuclei) and cellular dysfunction.
Unwanted cell death occurs, releasing the micronuclei from the disrupted DNA repair into the fluid between cells (interstitial fluid), where they are free to replicate and proliferate. This, says Dr. Carlo, is the most likely mechanism that contributes to cancer.
Damage occurs to proteins on the cell membrane, resulting in disruption of intercellular communication. When cells can't communicate with each other, the result is impaired tissue, organ, and organism function. In the blood-brain barrier, for example, cells can't keep dangerous chemicals from reaching the brain tissue, which results in damage.
http://www.CELLphoneLIES.COM
Will Europe Ban Cell Phones for "Under-age" Use?
The Vienna Medical Association is demanding the removal of zero tariffs and the banning of mobile phone advertising targeting children and adolescents. Says Erik Huber, environment advisor for the association: "Children under the age of 16 should never use a mobile phone."
Many scientists and government agencies in Europe have already accepted that EMF from cell phones does pose health risks, reflected in Huber's statement, "Scientists do not argue anymore whether mobile phones are harmful, but how harmful they are."
The best way to protect yourself would be to simply not use a cell phone and revert back to a corded phone. At the very least I would urge you to not let your kids use them or severely limit their use. Their developing nervous systems and thinner skulls are simply too vulnerable to cell phone damage.
If you choose to keep your cell phone, make sure you use a non-Blue Tooth headset. Also remember, even when you're not using your phone, keep it as far away from your body as possible. Do not keep it on your belt or in your pocket as the radiation WILL penetrate your body wherever the phone is attached. According to a scientific study published in Fertility and Sterility in May 2007, statistically significant changes were found in men's sperm count and health of the sperm, based on cell phone use.
Their conclusion? "Use of cell phones decreases the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability and normal morphology. The decrease in sperm parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones, and independent of the initial semen quality."
So, make sure you stow your cell phone in a bag, briefcase, or your car's glove compartment.
To learn more go to
The cellular phone industry was born in the early 1980s, when communications technology that had been developed for the Department of Defense was put into commerce by companies focusing on profits. This group, with big ideas but limited resources, pressured government regulatory agencies—particularly the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—to allow cell phones to be sold without pre-market testing. The rationale, known as the "low power exclusion," distinguished cell phones from dangerous microwave ovens based on the amount of power used to push the microwaves. At that time, the only health effect seen from microwaves involved high power strong enough to heat human tissue. The pressure worked, and cell phones were exempted from any type of regulatory oversight, an exemption that continues today. An eager public grabbed up the cell phones, but according to Dr. George Carlo, "Those phones were slowly prompting a host of health problems."Today there are more than two billion cell phone users being exposed every day to the dangers of electromagnetic radiation (EMR)—dangers government regulators and the cell phone industry refuse to admit exist. Included are: genetic damage, brain dysfunction, brain tumors, and other conditions such as sleep disorders and headaches.1-9 The amount of time spent on the phone is irrelevant, according to Dr. Carlo, as the danger mechanism is triggered within seconds. Researchers say if there is a safe level of exposure to EMR, it's so low that we can't detect it.The cell phone industry is fully aware of the dangers. In fact, enough scientific evidence exists that some companies' service contracts prohibit suing the cell phone manufacturer or service provider, or joining a class action lawsuit. Still, the public is largely ignorant of the dangers, while the media regularly trumpets new studies showing cell phones are completely safe to use. Yet, Dr. Carlo points out, "None of those studies can prove safety, no matter how well they're conducted or who's conducting them." What's going on here? While the answer in itself is simplistic, how we got to this point is complex.To learn more go to http://www.CellphoneLies.comhttp://www.emfnews.org
NORTH AMERICAN UNION & RFID CHIP TRUTH
Radio-frequency identification (RFID) is an automatic identification method, relying on storing and remotely retrieving data using devices called RFID tags or transponders.
An RFID tag is an object that can be applied to or incorporated into a product, animal, or person for the purpose of identification using radiowaves. Some tags can be read from several meters away and beyond the line of sight of the reader.
Most RFID tags contain at least two parts. One is an integrated circuit for storing and processing information, modulating and demodulating a (RF) signal, and other specialized functions. The second is an antenna for receiving and transmitting the signal. A technology called chipless RFID allows for discrete identification of tags without an integrated circuit, thereby allowing tags to be printed directly onto assets at a lower cost than traditional tags.
Today, a significant thrust in RFID use is in enterprise supply chain management, improving the efficiency of inventory tracking and management. However, a threat is looming that the current growth and adoption in enterprise supply chain market will not be sustainable. A fair cost-sharing mechanism, rational motives and justified returns from RFID technology investments are the key ingredients to achieve long-term and sustainable RFID technology adoption
An RFID tag used for electronic toll collection
In 1946 L�on Theremin invented an espionage tool for the Soviet Union which retransmitted incident radio waves with audio information. Sound waves vibrated a diaphragm which slightly altered the shape of the resonator, which modulated the reflected radio frequency. Even though this device was a passive covert listening device, not an identification tag, it has been attributed as the first known device and a predecessor to RFID technology. The technology used in RFID has been around since the early 1920s according to one source (although the same source states that RFID systems have been around just since the late 1960s).[2][3][4][5]
Similar technology, such as the IFFtransponder invented by the United Kingdom in 1939, was routinely used by the allies in World War II to identify airplanes as friend or foe। Transponders are still used by military and commercial aircraft to this day.
Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile have disconnected cell antennas at St. Mel School.
Parishioners of a Queens church and parents of its parochial school pupils were jubilant last week after two cellular phone companies unplugged 23 antenna towers from the school's roof.
The years-long tug of war between the community and the companies finally ended after Sprint Nextel removed its towers from Flushing's St. Mel School, which had signed a contract in 2000 to lease roof space.
The company had shared the space at 154-24 26th Ave. with T-Mobile.
T-Mobile also agreed to discontinue using its antenna towers after Sprint Nextel made the first move, said City Councilman Tony Avella (D-Bayside).
"They went out the same day [Dec. 27] and turned off the system," he said. "Within the past week they've begun to remove the equipment."
The church and school had attempted to annul the contracts for nearly two years.
"It's a major victory for all of us, and the parents are thrilled," Avella said.
A Sprint Nextel official said the company agreed to move out on the school's request.
"We made the decision in the best interest of serving our customers and the community," said spokesman Mark Elliott. "That was our sole reasoning for removing the equipment."
T-Mobile did not return calls for comment, but a spokesman, Wayne Leuck, e-mailed a written statement saying only that "Parents at St. Mel's School and throughout the area deserve the peace of mind that comes with high quality wireless coverage."
Church leaders began fighting the companies in March 2006 after parents raised concerns that children were being exposed to possibly harmful radio waves.
In recent weeks, the Diocese of Brooklyn, which includes Queens as well, turned up the heat on the two companies to terminate the contracts, which originally had been a way to raise money for the church and school. "The situation runs akin to the asbestos issue - 30 years ago nobody thought asbestos was dangerous," Avella said. Public schools are prohibited from erecting antennas by federal law.
http://www.Cellphonelies.com http://www.emfnews.org
CTV.ca News Staff
A small study in Sweden and the United States finds that using a cellphone just before bedtime interferes with sleep patterns.
Scientists at the Karolinska Institute and Uppsala University and Wayne State University in Detroit studied 35 men and 36 women. Thirty-eight of the volunteers said they had symptoms that they attributed to cellphone use, such as trouble concentrating and sleep problems. The other 33 volunteers reported no "mobile-related symptoms".
Half were exposed to 884 MHz wireless signals like that emitted by cellphones for three hours, while the others thought they were being exposed to it. The participants did not know which exposure they were receiving.
Those who were actually exposed to the radiation took longer to get into deep sleep. They also spent less time in the deepest part of sleep.
The participants took an average of about six minutes longer to reach the deep stage of sleep than when they had received the "sham" exposure. They also spent an average eight minutes less time in the deepest "stage 4" sleep.
Reports of headaches were greater during radio wave exposure than during sham exposure in the subjects who had previously not reported mobile-related symptoms. However, in those who were symptomatic, there was no difference in the reporting of headache between the two exposures.
Neither group was able to detect with accuracy whether they were being exposed to the true radio waves or to sham exposure.
The study is published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS). It was funded by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, which called the results "inconclusive."
One of the study's researchers, Dr. Bengt Arnetz, says it appears that cellphones affect the areas of the brain responsible for activating and co-ordinating the stress system. It's also possible that radio waves disrupt production of the hormone melatonin, which controls the body's internal circadian rhythms.
Sleep expert Dr. Jeffrey Lipsitz says he finds the study's results disturbing.
"Aside from the sleep aspects, honestly, it's a little worrisome that you could measure any significant difference in people just because they've been exposed to radio waves that simulate cellphone use," he told Canada AM Monday.
"So you kind of wonder what else might be going on to the brain as a result of extended cellphone use, and what does that mean for all of us?... It certainly cries out for more research."
Lipsitz says the results of the study might have the greatest implications for teenages, who tend to use cellphones more in the evening and tend to talk for long periods of time.
"So if they're using cellphones for long hours in the evening and then going to sleep and their sleep is disturbed -- and they're the ones who probably need more sleep than the rest of us anyways and not getting it -- this may have implications with regard to health and development and functioning in school and so on. So there are some serious implications to this." http://www.Cellphonelies.com
http://www.emfnews.org
The truth of cell phones and wireless technology has been buried by the industry, the health officials and governments. http://www.CellphoneLies.com Watch as this man uses special device to measure dangers of cell phones and office equipment.
A cellular phone is basically a radio that sends signals on waves to a base station. The carrier signal generates two types of radiation fields: a near-field plume and a far-field plume. Living organisms, too, generate electromagnetic fields at the cellular, tissue, organ, and organism level; this is called the biofield. Both the near-field and far-field plumes from cell phones and in the environment can wreak havoc with the human biofield, and when the biofield is compromised in any way, says Dr. Carlo, so is metabolism and physiology.
"The near field plume is the one we're most concerned with. This plume that's generated within five or six inches of the center of a cell phone's antenna is determined by the amount of power necessary to carry the signal to the base station," he explains. "The more power there is, the farther the plume radiates the dangerous information-carrying radio waves."
A carrier wave oscillates at 1900 megahertz (MHz) in most phones, which is mostly invisible to our biological tissue and doesn't do damage. The information-carrying secondary wave necessary to interpret voice or data is the problem, says Dr. Carlo. That wave cycles in a hertz (Hz) range familiar to the body. Your heart, for example, beats at two cycles per second, or two Hz. Our bodies recognize the information-carrying wave as an "invader," setting in place protective biochemical reactions that alter physiology and cause biological problems that include intracellular free-radical buildup, leakage in the blood-brain barrier, genetic damage, disruption of intercellular communication, and an increase in the risk of tumors. The health dangers of recognizing the signal, therefore, aren't from direct damage, but rather are due to the biochemical responses in the cell.
Here's what happens:
Cellular energy is now used for protection rather than metabolism. Cell membranes harden, keeping nutrients out and waste products in.
Waste accumulating inside the cells creates a higher concentration of free radicals, leading to both disruption of DNA repair (micronuclei) and cellular dysfunction.
Unwanted cell death occurs, releasing the micronuclei from the disrupted DNA repair into the fluid between cells (interstitial fluid), where they are free to replicate and proliferate. This, says Dr. Carlo, is the most likely mechanism that contributes to cancer.
With the background levels of information-carrying radio waves dramatically increasing because of the widespread use of cell phones,Wi-Fi, and other wireless communication, the effects from the near and far-fields are very similar. Overall, says Dr. Carlo, almost all of the acute and chronic symptoms seen in electrosensitive patients can be explained in some part by disrupted intercellular communication. These symptoms of electrosensitivity include inability to sleep, general malaise, and headaches. Could this explain the increase in recent years of conditions such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, and anxiety disorder?
"One thing all these conditions have in common is a disruption, to varying degrees, of intercellular communication. When we were growing up, TV antennas were on top of our houses and such waves were up in the sky. Cell phones and Wi-Fi have brought those things down to the street, integrated them into the environment, and that's absolutely new. The recognition mechanism, where protein vibration sensors on the cell membrane pick up a signal and interpret it as an invader, only works because the body recognizes something it's never seen before."
As to increases in brain tumors tied to cell phone use, it's too early to tell due to a lack of hard data, says Dr. Carlo. "We're never going to see that in time to have it matter. Here in the US, we're six years behind in getting the brain tumor database completed, and currently the best data are from 1999. By the time you see any data showing an increase, the ticking time bomb is set."
Epidemic curve projections, however, indicate that in 2006, we can expect to see 40,000 to 50,000 cases of brain and eye cancer. This is based on published peer-reviewed studies that allow calculation of risk and construction of epidemic curves. By 2010, says Dr. Carlo, expect that number to be between 400,000 and 500,000 new cases worldwide.
"This means we're on the beginning curve of an epidemic, with epidemic defined as a change in the occurrence of a disease that is so dramatic in its increase that it portends serious public health consequences," says Dr. Carlo. "This is what's not being told to the public. One of the things that I suggest to people who use a cell phone is to use an air tube headset. If you use a wired headset, the current moving through the wire of the headset attracts ambient informational carrying radio waves and thereby increases your exposure."
NUTRITIONAL PROTECTION AGAINST CELL PHONE RADIATION
As growing evidence points to the potential adverse health impact of exposure to cell phone radiation, scientists are seeking strategies to prevent or mitigate these effects. Currently, nutritional researchers are exploring whether melatonin, vitamin C, and and vitamin E can ameliorate the detrimental effects caused by radiation emitted by cell phones.
To date, a total of eight studies have pointed to the protective effects of melatonin and vitamins C and E in stemming the damage caused by cell phone emissions. In particular, these agents show promise in averting the increased oxidative stress that is thought to contribute to an increased risk of certain cancers. These studies have unveiled statistically significant protective effects of melatonin and vitamins C and E against the effects of the radiation frequency at which cell phones emit and receive radio frequency radiation.
Six of these eight studies were controlled, short-term studies (ranging from 10-30 days) in rodents. Each study examined 24-30 subjects. Study subjects were divided equally into three groups: one group received radiation exposure; another received active treatment with melatonin only, vitamin C only, or vitamins C and E before radiation exposure; and a control group did not receive radiation or active treatment. After the treatment period, scientists examined skin sections for radiation injury and analyzed blood and urine for markers of oxidative stress. They found significant kidney damage, skin changes, oxidative stress, and fibrosis in the animals who received radiation exposure only. Remarkably, these effects were reversed in the groups that received melatonin13-16 and vitamins C17,18 and E.17
Another two controlled studies in rodents, one of 10 days’19 and another of 60 days’ duration,20 revealed that melatonin significantly protects against retinal (eye)20 and kidney tissue19 damage caused by cell phone radiation, as compared with subjects that did not receive melatonin.
Despite this compelling evidence, other avenues of research still need to be pursued after contradictory findings from seven different studies that have looked into the effect of cell phone radiation on melatonin levels in the body.
In one study, melatonin levels in the blood were measured in 226 male electric utility workers who were categorized according to cell phone use. The study concluded that workers who used cell phones for more than 25 minutes per day had decreased melatonin production and revealed a relationship between increased cell phone use and decreasing melatonin levels in the blood.21
Yet six other studies—two in humans22,23 and four in rodents24-27— found that melatonin levels remained unchanged after radiation exposure. One human study did suggest that cell phone radiation may impact melatonin onset time. These were small studies, however, the majority of which were less than 28 days’ duration.
Melatonin is a vital natural neurohormone (hormone secreted by or acting on a part of the nervous system) that acts as a potent free radical scavenger and antioxidant. Melatonin regulates the daily circadian rhythm and is essential to self-repair and regeneration. Given melatonin’s protective effects, these findings warrant further research into the effect of cell phone radiation on melatonin in larger, longer-term, well-controlled human studies.
—Bina Singh
to learn more go to:
http://www.CellphoneLies.com
In less than a century very few people realize how much and how quickly we have changed the non-ionizing electromagnetic environment we live in. Most of the changes have happened in the last 30 years. Now, all living things are subject to million of times more radiation than 50 years ago.
For billions of years, the electromagnetic environment was virtually "silent" in the spectral region below visible light which was the most abundant source of electromagnetic energy.
We will never be able to experience this peaceful world again
Nature's sources of oscillating low frequency EMFs are few and extremely weak; the only sources are the sun, distant radio stars and other cosmic RF sources, and the terrestrial sources originating from lightning primarily in the tropics. Even the sun can not be considered a strong source of energy in the non-ionizing spectral region, making natural ambient levels so low that the possibilities of biological or even health effects are negligible [ref.1].
We will never experience that "quiet" world again. The greatest changes have all come after World War II with a trend towards the use of higher energy radio waves for long-distance communication and electronic devices of all types. Since then nearly every human action has involved an electrical appliance, and today we are all awash in a sea of artificial electromagnetic energies living species have never experienced before.
The human species has changed its electromagnetic exposures more than any other aspect of the environment. For example, with the explosion in radio and TV broadcasting stations, radio telephone networks, cordless phones and cell phones, the density of radio waves and microwaves around us is now many millions of times higher than the natural levels in the same spectral region.
Fig. 10: Exponential growth in background non-ionizing radiation.
Grave concern was expressed by the European Parliament after a series of hearings on the matter of RF/MW frequency EMF health effects (Resolution B3-0280/92):
"Thus in the frequency range 100 kHz to 300 GHz, 50 years ago it was scarcely possible to measure 10 pW/cm2 (10-12 W/cm2) on the ground in our countries. Today, depending on the location, values one million to one thousand million times higher are recorded because of the explosion of telecommunications".
The same applies to ELF fields produced by the dozens of electrical appliances owned by each household in the industrialized world and the power lines feeding those devices. Industrialized countries in North America , Western Europe and China emit so much ELF energy that it can be sensed by satellites in space.
Perhaps even more important than the increase in EMF densities, most man made EMFs differ in one important aspect from natural EMFs: man made sources radiate constant, regular oscillations or pulses of electromagnetic energy with distinct properties, whereas natural sources of EMFs are oscillating at random with mixed, irregular frequencies and amplitudes. For example, AC powered devices emit highly regular, sinusoidal ELF fields at a constant amplitude and frequency of 50 Hz (Europe) or 60 Hz (North America), and digital cell phones expose the heads of users to pulses of microwave, with carrier wave frequencies of around 900 or 1800 megahertz and modulation frequencies of 11, 22, 50 or 217 Hz.
To watch a video on the dangers of EMF's go to http://www.emfnews.org/chipcategory.html
.
The March issue of the University of Washington alumni magazine, Columns, features a well-deserved tribute to Henry Lai and his colleague, N.P. Singh, who have demonstrated that low-level microwave radiation can lead to an increase in DNA breaks in the brain cells of rats (available online). The headline of the piece tells the story: “Wake-Up Call: Can Radiation from Cell Phones Damage DNA in Our Brains? When a UW Researcher Found Disturbing Data, Funding Became Tight and One Industry Leader Threatened Legal Action.”
The article later identifies that “industry leader” as George Carlo who ran Wireless Technology Research (WTR) on behalf of the CTIA, the trade association of the cell phone industry. Of course, most people, except those on the industry payroll, now concede that WTR was misnamed. Something like “Whatever Happens Do As Little Research As Possible and Take As Long As Possible Not To Do It” would have been far more appropriate (even though it’s hard to make an elegant acronym out of all that).
One important fact is left out of the story —for reasons that will become apparent in a moment. The piece begins with Lai recollecting how, back in 1994, someone had tried to stop his DNA-microwave work by calling the National Institutes of Health and alleging that Lai was misusing his research grant by carrying out unauthorized experiments. After Lai explained what he was up to, the NIH was satisfied that nothing was amiss. Lai was allowed to go back to work, though he lacked the funds to do as much he would have liked.
The snitch is not named in the article but should be revealed. It was Bill Guy, who had received three degrees from the University of Washington, including his doctorate, and then spent much of his professional life at its Department of Bioengineering. No wonder the alumni magazine was squeamish about identifying him.
For more than ten years, Guy and Lai had worked together at the university’s Bioelectromagnetics Research Lab. They were coauthors on close to 20 research papers. But that did not stop Guy from trying to sabotage Lai’s research. At the time he made the call to Mike Galvin of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Guy was one of two key advisors to George Carlo, and was helping him map out the strategy for CTIA’s $25 million cell phone-health research project. Separately, he was also a consultant to the CTIA. Guy would stay on the WTR payroll for another three years.
Guy is a former president of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and the recipient of the d'Arsonval Award, its highest honor. Despite a lifetime in RF research, despite the fact that he chaired the committee that wrote the 1982 ANSI RF exposure standard, despite the fact that he chaired the committee of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements that wrote the council's 1986 (and its most recent) report on RF biological effects, Guy’s first impulse on hearing about some important new experimental finding that questioned the safety of a product that would soon be responsible for exposing more than a billion people to a constant stream of RF radiation was to blow the whistle and try to impugn Lai.
Does anyone still believe that the mobile phone industry ever made an honest attempt to get to the bottom of the cell phone safety question?
LUGOFF, S.C. - A text message sent by a kidnapped 14-year-old to her mother led to her rescue Saturday, when police found her in a hand-dug, booby-trapped bunker.
ADVERTISEMENT
Elizabeth Shoaf's message also led investigators to name a suspect in her Sept. 6 abduction — police were searching a wooded area where the girl was found for 37-year-old Vinson Filyaw, said Kershaw County Sheriff Steve McCaskill.
Shoaf was found by deputies about a mile from her home in a 15-foot deep hole in the side of a hill that was covered with plywood. The bunker had a hand-dug privy with toilet paper, a camp stove and shelves made with cut branches and canvas.
McCaskill said the girl appeared to be unharmed but was taken to Kershaw County Medical Center for evaluation. Police have not interviewed her, saying they would leave her alone until she's ready to talk.
"We're just glad that she's alive and she's safe and that she will be home with us," her aunt, Geraldine Williams, told WLTX-TV in Columbia. "She's a good girl. ... We never believed that she ran away."
Investigators say Filyaw may have posed as a police officer when he met Shoaf. The unemployed construction worker also is wanted on an unrelated sexual assault charge.
"He dug this pit and this child was in this pit," McCaskill said. "He is linked to her disappearance and he's got to answer for that."
The sheriff said the girl was walked around in the woods by her captor until she became disoriented. In the bunker, she was threatened with handmade grenades and a flare gun.
The sheriff said the text message the girl sent to her mother came from Filyaw's cell phone and deputies began looking for him Friday night.
Investigators used cell towers to determine a general location of the phone used to send the message. "That was the first break," McCaskill said.
McCaskill said the girl cried out as searchers approached the bunker where she was found.
"She was standing at the mouth of the bunker with the door open," sheriff's Capt. David Thomley told WLTX-TV in Columbia. He said Shoaf was not tied up and was very coherent.
The bunker was protected by a booby-trap, the sheriff said.
Police tracking hounds were brought in to aid in the search for Filyaw, and helicopters with spotlights circled overhead as night fell. A $5,000 reward was offered for information leading to his capture. Filyaw was considered armed and dangerous.
Deputies have been searching for Filyaw for months on an unrelated charge of criminal sexual conduct against a 12-year-old girl, McCaskill said.
Officers tried to arrest Filyaw at his home earlier this week, but he had an elaborate escape plan, involving a tunnel dug from his bedroom to a shed, the sheriff said.
"When deputies came to serve the warrant, he was able to escape, going under the mattress, going under the trailer and hiding and eluding the arrest," McCaskill said.
This is the second case this year in South Carolina involving an abducted teenage girl taken to an underground hideout.
Kenneth Hinson of Hartsville is charged with kidnapping two 17-year-old girls March 14 and taking them to a closet-sized dungeon behind his home. Authorities said the girls freed themselves and walked to safety, and Hinson was captured after a four-day manhunt.
Vol. 25: 189-191, 2006. The authors are Örjan Hallberg and Gerd Oberfeld. You will need to access the journal to get the full copy.
Letter to the Editor: Will We All Become Electrosensitive?
Örjan Hallberg*1 and Gerd Oberfeld2
1Hallberg Independent Research, Trångsund, Sweden.
2Public Health Department Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
Dear Editor,
Each year an increasing number of people claim to suffer from electrosensitivity (see, e.g., compilation of references given in Table 1), also known as being electrically hypersensitive (EHS). There are also other diseases, such as fibromyalgia and burn-out syndrome, that have symptoms similar to those exhibited by people suffering from electrosensitivity.
(Table 1)
In Sweden, electrosensitivity is recognized as a handicap, but there is still controversy surrounding the diagnosis of the disease. The mainstream view by governmental and medical authorities is that this handicap is a psychological phenomenon with no basis in physical or medical mechanisms (Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, SNBHW, 1995), whereby perpetuating the misconception that only a small fraction of the population is concerned about electrosensitivity or the proximity of new radio transmission masts.
The number of reported cases of electrosensitivity has been steadily increasing since it was first documented in 1991. Data presented here are estimates and are based on large sample inquiries where different sets of questions have been used. To determine whether the statistics indicate a sub-population of electrosensitivity or if the total population is at stake, we plotted reported prevalence estimates over time in a normal distribution diagram
(Table 1 and Figure 1).
Contrary to the views of mainstream medical authorities, Figure 1 shows that the group of electrosensitive people around the world, including Sweden, is not just a small fraction that deviates from the rest of the healthy population. Instead, it points at the possibility that electrosensitivity will be more widespread in the near future. The extrapolated trend indicates that 50% of the population can be expected to become electrosensitive by the year 2017.
Data presented here were collected in Austria, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.
