It takes a Green: on the dangers of wireless
Some time ago a fellow blogger here drew attention to the dangers associated with cell telephony, at http://www.partivert.ca/en/node/2337 (at which see also comments). Here is some serious follow-up.
A first legislative move in a precautionary vein, challenging the current methods of the telecommunications industry, has been made in Liechtenstein, at the centre of which
is their Green parliamentarian, Dr.Pepo Frick.
From http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_ite... (extract only; full article requires payment) :
"la principauté [Liechtenstein] a décidé de dicter sa loi aux opérateurs de téléphonie mobile. En adoptant, le 29 mai 2008, une loi sur la protection de l'environnement, le Parlement de Vaduz a donné quatre ans aux industriels pour se conformer à une nouvelle réglementation particulièrement restrictive : un taux d'émission des antennes-relais limité à 0,6 volt par mètre (V/m)."
More recently, governmental update (from http://www.next-up.org/pdf/Liechtenstein_reaffirme_sa_volonte_adopter_st... ),
"le Parlement vient de réaffirmer qu’il ne reviendra pas sur l’intégralité de sa résolution d’adopter le seuil de 0,6 V/m d'ici à 2013 et il est résolument convaincu que c’est techniquement réalisable."
"Le Parlement a aussi convenu qu'il n'est pas nécessaire de réaliser de nouvelles études sur les risques pour la santé par rapport à la problématique des antennes relais. Au contraire, les Députés demandent au Gouvernement d’entreprendre concrètement la possibilité du lancement d’une phase de tests avec un seuil de 0,6 V/m d’émission des antennes relais."
Let's consider some alarming reports:
From the Institute of Wellbeing (Roy Romanow, advisory board chair), http://www.ciw.ca/en/Home.aspx :
"The decline in the share of the population that considers itself in excellent or very good
health is most marked among Canadian teenagers. Whereas over 80% of 12–19 year
olds reported excellent or very good health in 1998, only 67% did so in 2005."
"This is matched by a steadily increasing share of teenagers who report problems with
everyday functions (memory, thinking and mental wellbeing), an increase of 6.4
percentage points."
In Israel, a study several years ago noted a 20% drop in male reproductive function, a recent study showing a further 20% drop. See eg at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1084574.html .
The single most important proliferating development has been cell phone use leading up to the times of such studies, although they shy away from the connexion with cell phones & towers. It's no longer a question of precautionary principle. It is an urgent question of public safety. The enhancements provided by cell phone use are almost never worth the health cost faced now, let alone an untold future burden about which to be precautionary. As the biological deterioration continues apace in these regards, a possibly gargantuan cost is to be faced forthrightly now without backing down. Let Greens in Canada stand up and not back down.
Our governments might hide behind jurisdictional & administrative frameworks to explain their paralysis, although who does not think that the industry in question & those who back it financially
are not aggressively in the background. Industry Canada in charge of antennae & even Health Canada can claim to not regulate regarding health concerns, and provincial (& thus municipal) health authorities can claim antennae are not in their mandate. Of course it is ridiculous. A law can be easily & promptly put in place to cover any framework gaps, easier even than the industry can install coverage for reception gaps. ("Quick, recall Parliament!" -- remember that "lives were at risk" isotope episode, about which only Greens knew to speak out about forthrightly?) Must one by cell telephony be enabled to talk about anything, anywhere, anytime? To enable frivolous chit-chat in underground parking garages do we need unremitting microwave pulses of clearly enough ascertainably dangerous intensity? Why is Canada, and the English-speaking world generally, so far behind in publicizing risks, these lands of "freedom", freedom to...?
Relying on outdated material concerned mainly with thermal effects of radiation, here's eg from
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/prod/cell-eng.php :
"So far, the weight of evidence from animal, cell culture and human studies does not indicate that the energy emitted by cell phones is strong enough to cause serious health effects. Some scientists have reported that cell phone use may cause changes in brain activity, in reaction times, or in the time it takes to fall asleep, but these findings have not yet been confirmed."
"As long as exposures respect the limits set in Health Canada's Guidelines, Health Canada has determined that there is no scientific reason to consider base stations dangerous to the public."
See "4. Exposure Limits" at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf01904.html , which is based on Safety Code 6 from 1999!
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/electri-magnet/electromag... :
"In summary, it is the opinion of Health Canada that there is no scientific evidence that the symptoms attributed to [Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, EHS] are actually caused by exposure to EMFs."
Never mind that Sweden, home to an important cell phone industry no less, where there thus must be at least some distance between science, politics & business, has recognized EHS as a disability with legal protections. Note, too, how Sweden has declared admirable national targets for elimination of oil dependency.
In 1999 (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/radiation... ) there was the admission:
"In a field where technology is advancing rapidly and where
unexpected and unique problems may occur, this Code cannot cover
all possible situations and blind adherence to rules cannot substitute
for the exercise of sound judgement. Consequently, specifications and
recommendations in this Code may require some modifications under
certain circumstances. This, however, should be done in consultation
with experts competent in the field of RF radiation protection. This
Code will be reviewed and revised periodically and a particular
requirement may be reconsidered at any time if it is found necessary."
There is a by now enormous learned literature on the non-thermal deleterious effects. Where is that periodic review & revision? Is absence of update meant to not curb yet another "freedom" to damage & despoil?
The action in Liechtenstein takes up the "BioInitiative". From the "BioInitiative Report:
A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)" at http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/docs/section_17.pdf (section entitled, "KEY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS"):
"Given the scientific evidence at hand, the rapid deployment of new wireless technologies
that chronically expose people to pulsed RF at levels reported to cause bioeffects, whicih [sic]
in turn, could reasonably be presumed to lead to serious health impacts, is a public health
concern. A public health action level that implements preventative action now is
warranted, based on the collective evidence. There is suggestive to strongly suggestive
evidence that RF exposures may cause changes in cell membrane function, cell
communication, metabolism, activation of proto-oncogenes and can trigger the
production of stress proteins at exposure levels below current regulatory limits.
Resulting effects can include DNA breaks and chromosome aberrations, cell death
including death of brain neurons, increased free radical production, activation of the
endogenous opioid system, cell stress and premature aging, changes in brain function
including memory loss, retarded learning, performance impairment in children,
headaches and fatigue, sleep disorders, neurodegenerative conditions, reduction in
melatonin secretion and cancers[...]
As early as 2000, some experts in bioelectromagnetics promoted a 0.1 µW/cm2 limit
(which is 0.614 Volts per meter [thus the Liechtenstein legislation]) for ambient outdoor exposure to pulsed RF, so generally in cities, the public would have adequate protection against involuntary exposure to pulsed radiofrequency (e.g., from cell towers, and other wireless technologies). The Salzburg Resolution of 2000 set a target of 0.1 µW/cm2 (or 0.614 V/m) for public exposure to pulsed radiofrequency. Since then, there are many credible anecdotal reports
of unwellness and illness in the vicinity of wireless transmitters (wireless voice and data
communication antennas) at lower levels. Effects include sleep disruption, impairment of
memory and concentration, fatigue, headache, skin disorders, visual symptoms (floaters),
nausea, loss of appetite, tinnitus, and cardiac problems (racing heartbeat), There are some
credible articles from researchers reporting that cell tower -level RF exposures (estimated
to be between 0.01 and 0.5 µW/cm2) produce ill-effects in populations living up to
several hundred meters from wireless antenna sites,[sic]
This information now argues for thresholds or guidelines that are substantially below
current FCC and ICNIPR standards for whole body exposure. Uncertainty about how
low such standards might have to go to be prudent from a public health standpoint should
not prevent reasonable efforts to respond to the information at hand. No lower limit for
bioeffects and adverse health effects from RF has been established, so the possible health
risks of wireless WLAN and WI-FI systems, for example, will require further research
and no assertion of safety at any level of wireless exposure (chronic exposure) can be
made at this time. The lower limit for reported human health effects has dropped 100-
fold below the safety standard (for mobile phones and PDAs); 1000- to 10,000-fold for
other wireless (cell towers at distance; WI-FI and WLAN devices). The entire basis for
safety standards is called into question, and it is not unreasonable to question the safety of
RF at any level."
At the GPC blog link at above, there was some discussion related to tobacco, a comparison that often comes to mind. Again from that Institute of Wellbeing report:
"While the general wellbeing of young Canadians is of considerable concern, there is one area
that gives cause for hope. Between 1994 and 2007, teen smoking rates declined by 42%, and
the gender gap closed after several years where more female than male teenagers smoked.
This dramatic improvement in this unhealthy behaviour is due to concerted efforts by
governments and civil society groups across the country, ranging from tax and smoking
restriction policies to health promotion and public health advocacy."
It is time for more "concerted efforts by governments and civil society groups across the country". Let it be led or spurred by GPC, AGAINST the reckless spread of perhaps the greatest epidemiological experiment ever, in the current cell phone industry deployment. It is high time to STOP IGNORING the myriad complaints that sensitive people have expressed about their bodily reaction to cell phone use and cell towers. It is to be feared that "sensitive" people are merely the most easily reactive for now, those who feel compelled to pay close attention, the deterioration & possible eventual breakdown of varying body functions of everyone continually exposed an ominous possibility.
Anecdotes: "A chatty fellow, whose acquaintance not long ago I renewed, bade me speak loudly to him as he'd developed some kind of ear canal tumour. It was the ear to which he habitually held his cell phone. He had not even made the connexion." (repeated from http://www.greenparty.ca/node/2337#comment-1517 ). Another fellow I know, after long unknown direct exposure at close enough range in residential locations to cell antennae, suffers from epileptic seizures only alleviated by sufficient distance from the offending installations. A few weeks ago in the GTA there was a prominent news story about a very young person sleepwalking into traffic in the middle of the night, the child was hit by a car; since propensity to sleepwalk I believe indicates particular susceptibility to EMF-induced brain dysfunction, I checked maps of cell antennae deployment, and sure enough, the poor child appeared to live very near two in his neighbourhood.
Cell membrane leakage is at the describable root of the severe biological effects. See the very important work of recently retired British biologist, Andrew Goldsworthy, available eg at http://www.slideshare.net/staywired/andrew-goldsworthy-to-british-societ... --- read it (30 slides), and go figure, what are Greens waiting for!
- Daryl Vernon's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Theodore Tadeson |
- Rick Shea |
- Bram Kivenko |
- Rick Shea |
- David Barclay |
- 1 of 2171
- ››
Comments
how about some actual science.
(1) http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/Hypersensitivity.htm -- COMAR EHS study
(2) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2D-4KYY44P-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=959859222&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=47bbabb8e9663c322d597524070dae71 (abstract only)
and http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tjem/202/2/93/_pdf (full research study.)
-- low intensity nonionizing RF is not reproducibly mutagenic
(3) Brain tumors suspected to be caused by cell phones almost exclusively occur in individuals who have had heavy exposure to early analog phones. The RF radiation from those brick phones was criminal.
(4) If you are concerned about your cell-phone radiation: http://reviews.cnet.com/cell-phone-radiation-levels/
(5) Actual scientific report: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1367839 you will want to read the discussion if not the whole document.
Bottom line: SAR measurements of retail devices should be included for typical usage on the packaging or equivalent so the buyer can make an educated decision before purchase. Exposure from large transmitters should be limited, regulated, monitored and publicly disclosed by disinterested parties so that people living near transmitters can be assured they are not slowly being killed by RF radiation.
It is known that cancer rates can increase near emissions sources, but these affects are not reproducible in labs. Some acknowledgement must be made that the biological effect is not properly understood, but people need to understand that old TVs projected high levels of RF radiation into your brain for nearly a century and they didn't all get brain cancer, so being alarmist is also not helpful.
salivary gland cancer & obvious cell phone use link
the latest (maybe i'll keep feeding to you here the literally hundreds of studies pointing to obvious linkage & danger, until GPC gets something rolling on this...):
see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1100570.html
"The study was commissioned by the Israel Dental Association and directed by Avi Zini of the community dentistry department at the Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Dental Medicine. The study included examination of the incidence of oral cavity cancers in Israel from 1970 to 2006. Among salivary gland cancer cases, researchers found a worrying rise in the number of cases of malignant growth in parotid glands - the salivary gland located under the ear, near the location where cell phones are held during conversations. "
"We haven't gathered data on the use of cell phones on the part of the patients," Zini said, "but the rise [in cancer cases] absolutely could indicate increased exposure to cellular telephones and damage caused by radiation."
"salivary gland cancer, which researchers suspect to be linked to cell phone use, was disproportionately common among young patients. One fifth of those patients were under 20."
"A year and a half ago, a study led by Siegal Sadetzki of the Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy at Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, found a link between cell phone exposure and malignant and benign tumors on the head and neck; after five or more years of exposure, a 34 percent rise in the incidence of tumors on the side of the face on which the user holds the cell phone. "
this is only just the tip of an enormous iceberg; how much damning info on cell phones & masts does one need...
I'm not disagreeing with you.
Please, I'm not disagreeing with you.
However, we can't run around sounding like we want to ban WIFI and want to turn off everyone's cell phones.
There are a number of things that can be done to reduce lifetime RF exposure. One of the more important things is awareness: simple labelling of emissions on transmitting devices is a powerful first step. Do people know that talking on a cell-phone 8 hours each day might be dangerous? Maybe there should be warnings at point-of-sale.
From a political point of view, it's poor form to scare people into thinking the GPC is going to snatch their cellphones. The way you are approaching this, I fear you want to. We aren't all going to die tomorrow.
In the meantime, maybe you can quantify what the danger really is? I mean, is it 1 more cancer death per 100,000 per year? What is our risk?
ICEMS
The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (http://www.icems.eu/), using something at the heart of a Green approach, the Precautionary Principle,
"when there are indications of possible adverse effects, though they remain uncertain, the risks from doing nothing may be far greater than the risks of taking action to control these exposures [... shifting] the burden of proof from those suspecting a risk to those who discount it",
has issued several Resolutions, the latest in Venice, June 6, 2008,
"signed by scientists, engineers and medical doctors who have been doing EMF research and working internationally on electromagnetic fields health and safety" "[representing] hundreds of years of expertise and [placing] them at the forefront of knowledge about EMF",
dozens of signatories, after having discussed
"electro-hypersensitivity, blood brain barrier changes, learning and behavioral effects, changes in anti-oxidant enzyme activities, DNA damage, biochemical mechanisms of interaction, biological damage and, experimental approaches to validate these effects" were "compelled to confirm the existence of non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on living matter, which seem to occur at every level of investigation from molecular to epidemiological."
"The non-ionizing radiation protection standards recommended by international standards organizations, and supported by the World Health Organization, are inadequate. Existing guidelines are based on results from acute exposure studies and only thermal effects are considered. A world wide application of the Precautionary Principle is required."
"We take exception to the claim of the wireless communication industry that there is no credible scientific evidence to conclude there a risk. Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before, which is a further reason to justify precautions be taken to lower exposure standards in accordance with the Precautionary Principle.
We recognize the growing public health problem known as electrohypersensitivity; that this adverse health condition can be quite disabling; and, that this condition requires further urgent investigation and recognition."
Green success in France
In the recent EU elections, the marked success of the Greens, especially in SE France, can in no small part have been due to their regional Europe Ecologie list being led by Michèle Rivasi, of the centre de recherche et d’information indépendante sur les rayonnements magnétiques, part of a pre-election statement from whom:
[http://www.europeecologie.fr/actu/euroregion/michele-rivasi-conteste-les-declarations-de-l-academie-de-medecine-et-de-francois-fi]
"Après les effets graves et longtemps ignorés de l'amiante, des fuites radioactives, des OGM, des pesticides et des émanations toxiques des industries chimiques, comment peut-on affirmer que le principe de précaution est un luxe ? N'a-t-on pas connu suffisamment de scandales où la santé des citoyens a été délibérément mise en danger par le silence complice des politiques et de certains scientifiques ? L'Académie de Médecine est-elle dans son rôle quand elle nie les problèmes des plaignants et prend position en faveur des lobbies des grands groupes téléphoniques ?
Il y avait eu annonce d'un Grenelle de la téléphonie le 19 mars 2009. La date est reculée, et le grand débat citoyen s'est transformé en table ronde. Les lobbies tentent, une fois de plus, d'intervenir pour empêcher ce nécessaire débat d'avoir lieu. Et le gouvernement semble reculer face à ces lobbies. Ne soyons pas dupes de cette situation !
Par ailleurs il est surprenant que le premier ministre annonce sa conclusion du Grenelle de la téléphonique mobile avant que celui-ci n'ait eu lieu !
Les opérateurs prétendent qu'ils sont déjà soumis à des normes sérieuses, c'est faux : en France ces normes sont de 41 volts par mètres pour le GSM, donc bien trop élevées et sans comparaison avec les 0,6 volts par mètres préconisés par tous les scientifiques indépendants et les associations concernées, pour éviter la nocivité sur la santé de l'entourage.
Michèle Rivasi souhaite donc que la question de la dangerosité des antennes relais soit pleinement abordée lors de la table ronde sur la téléphonie mobile annoncée par le gouvernement pour le 26 mars 2009."
and more:
[http://www.europeecologie.fr/actu/euroregion/michele-rivasi-au-grenelle-des-antennes-le-principe-de-precaution-doit-etre-applique]
"Il faut impérativement réduire la puissance des antennes relais et ramener leur émission à la norme établie sans danger, c'est à dire 0,6 volts par mètre d'ici 2012 [see on Liechtenstein lead blog post above]. La France, qui autorise encore 41 volts par mètre, est parmi les pays européens aux normes les plus élevées, loin derrière la Belgique, le Luxembourg, l'Autriche ou la Bulgarie [in the anglo world, don't ask]. Cette proposition sera appuyée par différentes associations, et conforme à la proposition de loi déposée par les Sénateurs Verts [Green senators, imagine that]."
" « On assiste aujourd’hui à la multiplication de la technologie sans fil, Wi-fi, Wimax… sans qu’aucune étude sérieuse sur les risques sanitaires n’ait été menée. Je dis oui à la téléphonie mobile ; Non aux risques sanitaires sur la population ! » La tête de liste Europe Ecologie dans le Sud-Est prévient : « Nous ne nous satisferons pas de simples mesures sur l’utilisation du téléphone par les enfants.»"
reserved language...
...of the kind you'll find in a prestigious scholarly publication (but my less reserved emphasis throughout):
"The object of this work was to review recent trends in public health in Sweden. Data on different adverse health indicators were collected from official Swedish registries. We found that population HEALTH generally improved during the early 1990s but SUDDENLY STARTED TO DETERIORATE FROM 1997 ONWARDS. This quite DRAMATIC CHANGE is not likely to be explained only by improved diagnostics but physical causes need immediately to be searched for. A connection with the INCREASING EXPOSURE OF THE POPULATION TO GHZ RADIATION FROM MOBILE PHONES, BASE STATIONS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES cannot be ruled out."
Compare the sample indicators for the same period I posted above.
The quote is from the current issue of Pathophysiology, "Apparent decreases in Swedish public health indicators after 1997—Are they due to improved diagnostics or to environmental factors?"
Do you have a link to the publication?
Is that publication on line? If so, can you post a link?
no, no cause for alarm...
"Thus this study demonstrates for the first time a detailed molecular mechanism by which electromagnetic irradiation from mobile phones induces the activation of the ERK cascade and thereby induces transcription and other cellular processes."
Biochem J. 2007 August 1; 405(Pt 3): 559–568
"Mechanism of short-term ERK activation by electromagnetic fields at mobile phone frequencies"
Joseph Friedman, Sarah Kraus, Yirmi Hauptman, Yoni Schiff, and Rony Seger
Department of Biological Regulation, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel
........................................
"A widespread use of mobile phone (MP) evokes a growing concern for their possible adverse effects on human, especially the brain. Gene expression is a unique way of characterizing how cells and organism adapt to changes in the external environment, so the aim of this investigation was to determine whether 1800 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) can influence the gene expression of neuron. [....] The present results indicated that the gene expression of rat neuron could be altered by exposure to RF EMF under our experimental conditions."
Toxicology
Volume 235, Issue 3, 25 June 2007, Pages 167-175
"Studying gene expression profile of rat neuron exposed to 1800 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic fields with cDNA microassay"
Ran Zhaoa, Shuzhi Zhangb, Zhengping Xua, Li Jua, Deqiang Lua and Gengdong Yaoa,
aBioelectromagnetics Laboratory, Zhejiang University, School of Medicine, 388 Yu Hang Road, Hangzhou 310058, China
........................................
"Significant concern has been raised about possible health effects from exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields, especially after the rapid introduction of mobile telecommunications systems. Parents are especially concerned with the possibility that children might develop cancer after exposure to the RF emissions from mobile telephone base stations erected in or near schools [....] The aim of this study is to investigate whether there is an increased cancer incidence in populations, living in a small area, and exposed to RF radiation from a cell-phone transmitter station. This is an epidemiologic assessment, to determine whether the incidence of cancer cases among individuals exposed to a cell-phone transmitter station is different from that expected in Israel, in Netanya, or as compared to people who lived in a nearby area. [....] Cancer incidence of women in area A was thus significantly higher (p<0.0001) compared with that of area B and the whole city. A comparison of the relative risk revealed that there were 4.15 times more cases in area A than in the entire population. The study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station."
International Journal of Cancer Prevention, Vol 1, No 2.
"Increased Incidence of Cancer near a Cell-Phone Transmitter Station"
Ronni Wolf and Danny Wolf
.........................................
"The possible risks of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields for the human body is a growing concern for our society. We have previously shown that weak pulsed microwaves give rise to a significant leakage of albumin through the blood-brain barrier. In this study we investigated whether a pathologic leakage across the blood-brain barrier might be combined with damage to the neurons. [....] We found highly significant (p < 0.002) evidence for neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia in the brains of exposed rats."
Environmental Health Perspectives 111.7 (June 2003)
"Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones."
Leif G. Salford, Arne E. Brun, Jacob L. Eberhardt, Lars Malmgren and Bertil R.R. Persson
responsibilities of a Green politician
Read very recent short paper (4 pages), "Some Facts about Cell Phone Radiation", by Andrew Goldsworthy (BSc PhD Lecturer in Biology (retired) Imperial College London) at
http://www.mast-victims.org/resources/docs/Some%20Facts%20about%20Cell%2... .
Topics:
Unmodulated radio waves are relatively safe
Modulated radio waves are not safe
Cell phone signals are modulated
How the radiation affects us
How cells demodulate the signal
How people become electrosensitive
We are all at risk
Effects on the brain
Effects on the heart
Effects on the skin
Can we act responsibly?
The cell phone operators have responsibilities too
Can we contact Andrew Goldsworthy directly?
Some of what he is talking about relies on the nature of the encoding algorithm. Newer phones use more sophisticated encryption algorithms that should reduce the low frequency modulation to which he refers, and I am curious to know if this is an inadvertent solution to the problem.
I am attempting to contact the author, hopefully I will get a reply.
This probably doesn't help with cell phone towers, which are always on and have higher output than a single cellphone.
Concerned US Governors
Led by Florida's, three state governors declared May 2009, "Electromagnetic Sensitivity Awareness Month" in their states.
But don't expect to find the corresponding press releases at the Governors' websites, along with all others. In Fla., apparently, it was even retracted. Why do you think?
But copies were retained for
Florida Governor's announcement at: http://electromagnetichealth.org/pdf/Charlie-Crist-Announcement-EHS.pdf
Colorado's: http://electromagnetichealth.org/pdf/CO-Governor-Proclamation.pdf
Connecticut's: http://electromagnetichealth.org/pdf/CT-Governor-EMS-Proclamation-JREMS2...
In case you're interested in science..
I've communicated with Andrew Goldsworthy (the author of the article on cell membrane leakage). He has identified one factor that seems to cause adverse affects in brain cells. I suppose it's unknown as to how many factors there are, but stopping membrane leakage sounds important.
I gave him some ideas as to what could move this beyond diagnosis and perhaps toward a remedy from the technology side. Let's face it, engineers are not experts in biology. Thus it is amazing cell phones have as few adverse affects as they do.
I'll let you know if anything comes of it. It is nice that this forum can be a means of productivity outside of the political sphere.
(non-thermally) heating up
The principal website, microwavenews.com, recently noted a leading epidemiologist's moving to focus on driving hazards asociated with cell phone use, i.e. as it were pushing from the limelight pressure from the growing body of damning reports & studies of non-thermal effects of radiation at the cellular level. Although the brain-damaging effect of cell phone use might enter into it as well, the effect on driving habits has long been widely noticed, and recently acted on if mildly in some jurisdictions. Mildly -- some show "hands-off" use as distractingly bad as hands-on; I was slow motion hit on my old bicycle several years ago at a Toronto intersection as the driver looked only left, phone to left ear, before turning right, into me & my prompt banging on the vehicle hood to stop her, but not before the ruin of the bike, and in retrospect I regret only having extracted on the spot $100 from her obvious cash-overflowing pocket, I should have asked for full replacement new bike value not just what the old bike was worth, she must have been concerned to face spouse & insurance people...
What & to whom eventually will industry have to pay? In the early 90s, before mass commercial launch, there was an unsuccessful US lawsuit brought by the widower of a cell phone user whose loss must have been related to cell phone use, the court judging too inconclusive or insufficient any causal link. But not long thereafter, the pivotal US industry hired someone they must have thought would play, consistently as he had in the past, as an accused industry "shill" to oversee new research into possible health effects. The would-be "shill" owned up with integrity to the early data & refused to peform as expected for the industry, which dumped & tried to discredit him. Geo. Carlo's book account came out in 2000. There was plenty of evidence even then to favour a precautionary approach. Carlo has likened what's going on now to the proverbial frog being gradually boiled from a cold water start, not noticing 'til it's too late. Well, some of us intuit correctly straightaway, paying attention to our own bodily signs as of utmost importance, at great cultural odds with what prevails, regarding almost everything that touches our bodies from nourishment to liveihood -- we are the environment. But no stopping the aggressive commercial wave. Back to traffic: Prominent Swedish researcher, Lennart Hardell, early on found a remarkable spike in traffic accidents dating from the mid-90s time when the cell phone network was switched on in Stockholm. Look at his impressive research, some quotes from which:
"Since the number of sick-registered people in Sweden started to increase from 1997 we were interested to see whether this trend was the same for private companies in general, a state-owned company and two individual large private companies. The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise provided general data; Telia AB provided data from the former Swedish Telecom Administration and Scania AB and Ericsson AB are two large private companies. The statistics from Ericsson AB relates to white-collar employees while the Scania data also includes blue-collar employees. In total we see that the absence due to sickness increased by 50% from 1997 to 2002. According to statistics from Statistics Sweden (SCB) small companies are in general healthier than large companies. This picture has been unchanged since 1998. The data show that companies with more than 50 employees are twice as sick as small companies."
[they've a neat compound graph at that article, showing several indicators spiking upwards from the mass cell deployment year]
1997 – A curious year in Sweden Örjan Hallberg1 and Olle Johansson2 European Journal of Cancer Prevention 2004, 13:535–538
"In 1997 many large companies introduced wireless office phone systems. One such is called GSM-in-Office and operates at 900 MHz. This made it necessary to install a number of small transmitters in office buildings, corridors and even in the office work area. The employees had to use the mobile phone for all calls, in many cases for long calls. So, from 1997 many employees became exposed to microwave radiation during all work hours from small base stations, in addition to stronger radiation from their handsets during all their calls. Smaller companies did not introduce this type of office system. Smaller companies also have better health records in general as reported by the SCB (http://www.scb.se/) and mentioned before. This also applies to work-related injuries as reported by the Swedish Work Environment Authority (http://www.av.se)."
from Adverse health indicators correlating with sparsely populated areas in Sweden Örjan Hallberg European Journal of Cancer Prevention 2007, 16:71–76
[the following is particularly impressive regarding population distribution & discounting of other factors]
"This brief overview shows that several health-related statistics have strong, statistically significant negative correlations with the PD, and an even stronger positive correlation to the estimated output power from MPs and/or their antennas in the counties of Sweden."
"The fact remains, however, that areas with less MP system coverage require higher output power (Hallberg and Johansson, 2004a, b, c). Many other factors have been examined in similar studies elsewhere in the world. These include socio-economic and behavioural variables, heritable susceptibilities, occupational hazards such as farm chemical use, radon, pathogenic microorganisms in soil and water, ‘sick buildings’ that harbour moulds, dietary practices, atmospheric and oceanic conditions that transport chlorinated hydrocarbons and other hazardous substances to the world’s northernmost areas, military radars and similar devices, and lack of medical and environmental professionals trained to recognize epidemiological risks. The correlations we report here are puzzling but indisputable. The fact that similar results as those found in Sweden are also found in Denmark and Norway, makes it difficult to disregard the findings as just a matter of coincidence. Thus, we must look for realistic and logical explanations for the trends we see today, and the abrupt deviation from the status quo prior to 1997."
As I research around the internet on this urgent topic, I've frequently noted missing webpages. Wonder why? Is there actually money & power to lose (wouldn't be worried about lives or health, right?)? See also entries at & following http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-23/eu & http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-22/bioinitiative .
notice a resemblance?
GMOs: Scientific Tests Must Be Approved by Industry First
Thanks again to Engdahl for diligence on this topic. Here he refers to a current Scientific American article. Notice the reference to President George H.W. Bush, who happened to figure conspicuously in the Carlo book re the cell phone industry's attempt to muscle through any research. Engdahl likens the GMO industry's ongoing prohibition on independent research & co-opting the rest, to new car companies getting out of fair crash testing. How about, more like re cell phones, like that cold-to-boiling poor frog?
studies raining down
Téléphone portable, wi-fi, antennes : la tension monte
"Les sénateurs Verts ont répliqué fin mars par une proposition de loi. Comme les associations, ces élus réclament une baisse de l'exposition du public aux émissions électromagnétiques."
"Le foetus serait affecté" [étude danoise publiée en 2008, incluant 3000 enfants] :
"Chez les femmes enceintes, l'étude a déterminé que les foetus exposés aux ondes auraient 54% de risques supplémentaires de présenter des troubles du comportement comme une hyperactivité ou des troubles émotionnels. Chez les très précoces utilisateurs, soit 30% des enfants, ce risque atteint même 80% ! " [ http://sciencesetavenirmensuel.nouvelobs.com/hebdo/sea/p747/dossier/a399... ]
"L'ADN serait lésé" [étude en Vienne, 2005 et 2008]:
"après une exposition continue ou intermittente de cellules de tissu humain à des hyperfréquences pendant plusieurs heures, il a été constaté des effets sur leur ADN : les brins simples et doubles sont lésés. En outre, l'exposition intermittente a plus d'effets que l'exposition continue, ce qui écarte l'hypothèse d'un effet thermique"
"La barrière sang/cerveau tomberait" [suédoise, 1988-2008]:
"l'exposition aux hyperfréquences ouvre la «barrière» entre sang et cerveau" "l'effet est d'autant plus fort que la puissance du rayonnement est faible" [-- there may be no establishably safe lower limit]
"Les gènes seraient atteints" [aux E-U 2005]:
"Les gènes lié s à la mort cellulaire (l'apoptose) étaient particulièrement concernés contrairement à ceux liés à la réaction aux chocs thermiques."
"Le métabolisme des tomates est perturbé" [France, 2007]:
"le champ électromagnétique a un effet biologique sur un plant de tomate exposé pendant 10 minutes. Dans les feuilles, les chercheurs ont mesuré les variations de l'expression de trois gènes impliqués dans les réponses aux «stress» environnementaux. Après l'exposition, l'expression de ces gènes est 3 à 5 fois plus importante qu'en temps normal. De plus, si une seule feuille est exposée alors que le reste de la plante est protégé, le rayonnement déclenche le même effet sur l'ensemble de la plante."
Men, want to have children?
Then no active mobile phones below the waist.
"human sperm exposed to mobile phone radiation (1.8 GHz) for 16 hours had reduced vitality and motility, two key indices of fertility"
And if you manage to have children, don't you owe it to them to minimize possibilities of defect?
"DNA damage" - "The changes in motility and vitality became statistically significant at 1 W/Kg and the DNA damage at 2.8 W/Kg. In all cases, the statistical reliability of the effects became much more significant with higher SARs."
"After 16 hours exposure, there was clear evidence of DNA damage"
"Several independent lines of evidence suggest that RF-EMR has the potential to influence semen quality and could be an important contributor to DNA damage in the male germ line"
"RF can cause leakage of electrons from the mitochondria and produce reactive oxygen species (ROS), which in turn can attack DNA [...] unrelated to thermal stress"
http://www.microwavenews.com/ is a leading site for reportage on health effects of cell telephony, and that's from where the quotes are taken, referring to recent Australian work in the field, led by "John Aitken, a well-known fertility researcher". This most recent piece at the website highlights several other similar international study results. How many more shying away from direct imputation to radiation from cell phones & masts, even though the data almost scream out for that, as is the case with the Israeli studies regarding halving of male reproductive capacity mentioned in the first post above.
knobs, pins, bananas
now from Nigeria:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19816647 [scholarly article abstract]
"The exposure of male mice to radiofrequency radiations from mobile phone (GSM) base stations at a workplace complex and residential quarters caused 39.78 and 46.03%, respectively, in sperm head abnormalities compared to 2.13% in control group. Statistical analysis of sperm head abnormality score showed that there was a significant (p < 0.05) difference in occurrence of sperm head abnormalities in test animals. The major abnormalities observed were knobbed hook, pin-head and banana-shaped sperm head. The occurrence of the sperm head abnormalities was also found to be dose dependent. The implications of the observed increase occurrence of sperm head abnormalities on the reproductive health of humans living in close proximity to GSM base stations were discussed."
Otitoloju AA, Obe IA, Adewale OA, Otubanjo OA, Osunkalu VO.
Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria
Note well: it is not merely a question of failure to reproduce, but of dangerous risk of propagation of defect.
elsewhere in Africa
http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=1&aid=5&dir=2009/October/Thursday15
..........
[S.Afr. Witwatersrand U. physicist] Muller said that contrary to the Botswana government's position, every single study into general health around a mast carried out anywhere in the world (about eight studies so far have been done) has found a consistent pattern of health problems. "They include: severe headaches; chronic fatigue; sleep disorders; gastric upsets and nausea; circulation problems (high blood pressure); heart rhythm problems and palpitations; rashes and prickling skin or sensations of heating; mood swings and depression; memory and attention problems; lowered immunity and lingering infections; joint pains and aching gums; tinnitus (ringing in the ear); visual problems; dizziness and disorientation; and other complaints, including neurological disorders (e.g. epilepsy).
"We have found every single one of these symptoms and more around masts in Johannesburg, and the people tell us that when they move away from the mast, these symptoms often disappear immediately, especially fatigue, headaches and sleep disorders," the expert told Mmegi.
The researcher also tells Mmegi that there have been three studies worldwide of cancer around masts, in Germany, Austria and Israel. "All of them found significantly increased cancer rates, up by at least 200-300 percent. The main cancers seem to be brain tumors, breast cancers and leukemia. We have noted many prostate cancers near masts as well," Muller added. "I myself suffer from a very particular and unmistakable fatigue when I'm near an active mast, I can always tell when there is a mast nearby. The fatigue can last from four to six hours afterwards," Muller narrated. "So the Bakgatla are quite correct to be concerned, and I am really perturbed to hear about these deaths from brain tumors. These were previously rare, but the single biggest cause of death of children in the United States (US) and Australia is now brain tumors though, it used to be leukemia," Muller added.
[...]
"The radiation guidelines used are only taking into account the fact that this radiation heats tissue up. However, research has shown for example that pulsed frequencies affect brainwaves at levels corresponding to one-trillionth of the guidelines used. This is not a heating effect, the brain also works on electrical pulses," he explained.
"Other health effects such as fatigue and headaches start at one-millionth of the current guidelines, according to compilations of many research studies.
......."
most famous cell phone death?
Recently deceased Sen. Kennedy known to be a heavy cell phone user, reportedly refused to comment on the connexion with his deadly brain tumour. Wonder why?
another important Goldsworthy piece just published
http://www.mast-victims.org/resources/docs/HPA-Wifi-press-release-commen...
"The important thing to note is that any assertion that Wi-Fi and mobile phones must be safer than other forms of electromagnetic radiation just because the signal is weaker is both false and dangerous."
He takes to task British Health Protection Agency's recent dangerously incompetent pronouncement on wireless safety. He includes descriptions of the process of cell vulnerability & damage.
"Under some circumstances, a weaker signal may even [....] make matters worse."
"Many of the so-called “modern illnesses” that have increased, sometimes
dramatically, in the last few decades can be linked to cell membrane leakage due to
our increasing exposure to non-ionising electromagnetic radiation."
"Unscheduled leakage due to electromagnetic exposure can therefore trigger false sensations such as pins and needles, heat, pain and pressure, depending on which cells are most affected. When the hair cells of the inner ear are affected, it can cause tinnitus, which is a false sensation of sound." -- see my admission of symptoms at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/11005/2009-09-12/fellow-green-twitters-wh... & http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-22/bioinitiative#comment-10905
"Prolonged exposure to the radiation seems to damage these cells permanently so they become
even more inclined to leak and the person becomes sensitised for life." -- we know people in this situation, some near catastrophic -- what is it worth to all you twitterers?!!!
"extremely weak electromagnetic radiation such as that from mobile phones could disrupt the bloodbrain barrier and allow unwanted materials, such as albumin from the blood stream to
enter and kill neurones. Although the effect may not be immediately noticeable,
prolonged exposure is likely to lead to early dementia."
He offers suggestions for possibly safer wireless.