Microwave - and other forms of electromagnetic - radiation are major (but conveniently disregarded, ignored, and overlooked) factors in many modern unexplained disease states. Insomnia, anxiety, vision problems, swollen lymph, headaches, extreme thirst, night sweats, fatigue, memory and concentration problems, muscle pain, weakened immunity, allergies, heart problems, and intestinal disturbances are all symptoms found in a disease process the Russians described in the 70's as Microwave Sickness.
Smart meters proposed for Tasmania in new Tas. government draft for public comment
It had to come: The industry push (with the usual spin) to introduce smart meters in Tasmania. Note that in the government’s draft policy statement public comments are invited until February 15, 2015. I will certainly be sending in a submission and invite all interested individuals and groups to send in submission as well.
The following appeared in the Tasmanian Mercury newspaper on December 22, 2014:
Bid to restore energy advantage with pay-less power strategy
DAVID KILLICK Mercury
December 22, 2014 12:00AM
SMART meters, an increased uptake of electric vehicles and a second Basslink cable look set to be part of Tasmania’s energy future.
Releasing a draft of the state’s energy strategy yesterday, Energy Minister Matthew Groom said the aim was to drive down the cost of electricity prices for all Tasmanians.“This is about ensuring that in Tasmania we have the lowest possible power prices that are genuinely sustainable over the long term,” he said.
The policy has nine goals, among them ensuring a safe, secure, and reliable supply; that Tasmanian electricity prices will be among the lowest in Australia; and that consumers will have greater choice in how to meet their energy supply needs and will pay competitive, fair and predictable prices for those choices.
CDC Autism Scandal: Tsunami of Anger is Brewing and About to Explode
Health Impact News Editor Comments
As we have previously reported, CNN so far is the only mainstream media (MSM) outlet to report on the CDC whistleblower story regarding CDC senior vaccine scientist Dr. William Thompson, who has come forward to confess that the CDC has withheld key information linking vaccines to autism. This is the one story the MSM does not want to cover, because they have repeated the CDC’s mantra for years now that there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism.
The CNN story that was published on their website reporting about Dr. Thompson marginalized the significance of his public statement, and did not report on the contents of his taped conversations with Dr. Brian Hooker, where he expressed deep sorrow for remaining silent all these years. (See: MSM Marginalizes CDC Whistleblower Story on Vaccine-Autism Coverup) So far, other MSM outlets have not said much about this news, as it seems the story is still too “hot” for them to touch, as events continue to unfold.
I don’t know if the fact that CNN is headquartered in Atlanta, the same city where the CDC has its headquarters, has anything to do with it, but an editorial decision was made by someone at CNN to embed a video at the top of their report on the CDC whistleblower from earlier in 2014 where health correspondent Elizabeth Cohen states that within all of the dangerous side-effects of vaccines, autism is not listed. She then rephrased for those needing help understanding her, explaining that “Some people don’t hear this well: vaccines do not cause autism.”
This editorial decision to include this video by CNN, could go down as one of the biggest blunders by a major news network of all time.
The result has been that thousands of families who have children that have been damaged by vaccines that resulted in autism, have begun to post videos on the Autism Media YouTube channel on a page called: “Hear this Well: Breaking the Silence on Vaccine Violence.”
The Federal Government is Paying for Damages due to Vaccines to Children with Autism
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out damages to children with autism as a result of vaccines. Most people do not even know that the United States is the only country in the world where someone who is damaged by vaccines has no legal right to sue the vaccine manufacturer. In 1986, Congress passed a law preventing legal liability to vaccine damages, because the drug companies manufacturing vaccines blackmailed them, by threatening to stop manufacturing vaccines without legal protection. There were so many lawsuits resulting from vaccine injuries and deaths prior to this time, that it was no longer profitable for them to continue marketing vaccines without legal protection. So instead of Congress requiring that drug companies manufacture safer vaccines, they complied with the drug companies’ requests and passed legislation protecting the drug companies. In 2011 this law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Instead of suing drug companies now for damages due to vaccines, the public must file a petition with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which is funded by taxes on the revenues from vaccines. It is very difficult to sue the government and win a claim in this special vaccine court, and can take up to 10 years. So the 83 cases of autism that have already been awarded damages is obviously just the tip of the iceberg. (Here is the most recent published report of vaccine damages paid out.)
The Tidal Wave of Anger is Quickly Becoming a Tsunami
The CDC’s own numbers recording the number of children that are currently diagnosed with autism is around 1 out of 50, up from 1 out 10,000 just a few years ago. This means that just about everyone in the public is either directly or indirectly in contact with someone who has autism.
Vaccine damaged people and families are all around us. It is completely understandable why the CDC and pharmaceutical companies would not want to take any blame for this epidemic, and show any link to vaccines. But how long can this charade continue in the face of overwhelming evidence? How long will the majority of the public stand by and believe the MSM and government health agencies?
My daughter was given the MMR vaccine back in 1967 (she was less than a year old). The doctor said “watch for a reaction within 11 days”. Exactly 11 days later she developed a temperature close to 105. We rushed her to the ER and was told she might have meningitis! From what I could tell she did not have meningitis or any other symptoms and showed no signs of Autism, which I never heard about then. Perhaps the vaccine was different then as that was a long time ago, but nonetheless I can’t tell you how angry I was at that doctor
Now she has a son who has been affected by vaccines. And she’s a news anchor on a major network!
I do not trust the medical community or the government for that matter. (Source.)
Yes, even news anchors in the media are parents of vaccine damaged children!! How long will they remain silent??
As you watch the anger and heartache in the videos posted in response to CNN’s Elizabeth Cohen’s remarks, be aware that this is just the beginning. This pent up sentiment based on real experiences is currently a tidal wave that is quickly becoming a tsunami.
I do not yet know what the damage is going to be when this tsunami explodes, but Congress better act quickly to undo much of the damage they have created by removing transparency and allowing the current vaccine market to get to the point of where we are today. They now have clear evidence of fraud in the CDC from one of the CDC’s own vaccine researchers, who has become a whistleblower.
In the meantime, MSM editors and managers would be wise to muzzle their talking head doctors and science editors who are going to mock the vaccine damaged community. They have no idea what they are up against, and they are vastly underestimating this group of angry American citizens.
Or better yet, the MSM could just publish the truth and lose their pharmaceutical sponsors. I can almost guarantee that the first MSM outlet to do that will become the most popular news network in the world.
sFormer Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch wants the power lines stretching along the waterfront from East Providence to Providence to be relocated underground, a plan that has been shelved because the projected costs have skyrocketed from $19 million in 2007 to at least $34 million now.
In a Nov. 24 commentary in The Providence Journal, Lynch said there were several reasons for burying the lines and predicted that it would boost economic development and encourage tourism.
But he also said burial would, "improve public health and safety by eliminating exposure of nearby residential development projects to electro-magnetic fields, which has been associated with childhood leukemia and other diseases."
We were interested in whether there are any links between exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) and disease, particularly childhood leukemia?
We contacted Lynch's office to ask for his evidence. Meanwhile, we started looking for some ourselves.
But first, a point of information. Electromagnetic fields are everywhere. Turn on a toaster and you'll be exposed to EMFs. And burying the lines will only partially shield residents from this particular source.
"The fields are always there. If you send current over a wire it generates electromagnetic fields," said Tao Wei, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Rhode Island. Burying power lines might reduce the field somewhat but "there's no way to eliminate it all."
Whether such fields cause disease, particularly childhood leukemia -- is more complicated.
In our emails and in cell phone conversations with Lynch, he repeatedly argued that he never claimed that there was a link between EMFs and childhood leukemia (or other diseases). He only said that the two are "associated."
What's the difference?
Just because two things are "associated" -- occurring at the same time -- doesn't mean that one thing causes another. For example, wearing lipstick is associated with breast cancer because women wear lipstick and have much higher rates of breast cancer than men, who don’t. But lipstick doesn't cause breast cancer.
Lynch didn't make that distinction between association and causation.
So we believe the average reader would come away thinking that he was suggesting that EMFs cause disease. Otherwise, why raise the issue? Thus, we will judge his statement on that basis.
It turns out that even the reported association between power lines and health problems is debatable, according to the reports we examined.
While some studies have suggested that leukemia might lurk as a risk, other evidence argues against such a link, which is why a few groups have made statements hedging their bets, keeping the door open just in case new evidence comes along.
And when it comes to the "other diseases" that Lynch refers to, the consensus is that there is no convincing evidence that EMFs pose such a danger.
Many people came to believe such fields are hazardous thanks to a 1979 study in Denver, which never actually measured electromagnetic fields, and a three-part series in The New Yorker by journalist Paul Brodeur that sparked a wave of fear about electric blankets, video display terminals and power lines.
That prompted decades of research that has failed to prove anything conclusive.
There has been reason to doubt the risk for a long time.
One of the larger studies was done by the National Cancer Institute and published in 1997 in the New England Journal of Medicine. It found no evidence of a higher risk of leukemia among the children who had received the highest exposure of EMF. Researchers tend to focus on leukemia because it is a type of cancer that is particularly sensitive to radiation.
Dr. Edward Campion, a Journal editor, noted that, "In recent years, several commissions and expert panels have concluded that there is no convincing evidence that high-voltage power lines are a health hazard or a cause of cancer. And the weight of the better epidemiologic studies . . . now supports the same conclusion."
Ultimately, the reaction to the concerns developed into a strategy known as "prudent avoidance," where efforts are made to avoid strong electromagnetic fields just in case they might pose a health hazard.
With our use of electronic devices mushrooming, one might have expected a sharp increase in health problems if the fields were dangerous. That hasn't been seen. (Meanwhile, fears have shifted to the higher-frequency electromagnetic fields emitted by wireless Internet and cell phones and, once again, despite all the studies, there's been no definitive evidence of danger.)
The closest any health authority has come to saying the fields are dangerous came in 2002 when the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer characterized them as "possibly" causing cancer.
But the agency said the evidence that extremely low frequency magnetic fields of the power line variety cause childhood leukemia was limited, and evidence linking the fields to any other type of cancer was inadequate. The group declined to classify EMFs as a "probable" carcinogen.
In the intervening years, the link -- if there is one -- has remained tenuous.
A large 2005 study uncovered a slightly higher risk of leukemia for children living near overhead power lines, but the researchers said the findings appeared to be a fluke because the risk was seen in places where the magnetic field produced by the power line was lower than background levels. One theory is that the risk is linked to a family's income and poorer people tend to live near large power lines.
A Danish study published in 2014 came up with similar conclusions. It logged leukemia cases, but none within 200 meters -- about 656 feet -- from power lines. If the power lines were causing cancer, you would expect the cases to be closest to the lines.
In 2013, a study of 2,779 cases of childhood leukemia diagnosed in France from 2002 to 2007 found that a child had to live within 55 yards of power lines to have a risk, but only if those lines were classified as very high voltage power lines. Beyond 55 yards posed no risk. Neither did living near other types of power lines.
A study published in 2014 also failed to show a consistent link to childhood leukemia. In places where researchers think they have seen cancer, it may be due to chance. In some instances, the risk was seen in areas adjacent to power lines where EMF levels were no higher than what you would get from Earth's magnetic field.
Animal studies have shown no consistent risk, which is another reason scientists are skeptical of a link.
Lynch, who has been interested in the EMF issue for years, sent us several documents, some from more than a decade ago, including a National Grid brochureand a New York Times story from July in which one expert, who has long been concerned about EMFs and wants to keep WiFi out of schools because he fears it might be risky, thinks the evidence supporting a hazard has only grown stronger.
And he pointed us to a September 2012 report by Michael Kundi, who heads the Institute of Environmental Health at the Medical University of Vienna, in Austria, and argues that, based on the research, power lines pose a much greater risk of leukemia than previously assumed and the evidence is so strong that it doesn't matter that animal studies have shown no problem.
He is part of a group of researchers who believe cellphones, wireless laptops, WiFi transmitters, cell towers, power lines and electronic baby monitors probably pose a long list of health hazards that include various cancers, sperm damage, autism and Alzheimer's disease. They also want WiFi removed from schools. That would support Lynch's contention that "other diseases" might be involved.
Yet what do major science and medical organizations say?
The American Cancer Society lists "Exposure to electromagnetic fields (such as living near power lines)" as an "uncertain, unproven, or controversial" risk factor for childhood leukemia. Studies of electric fields have not shown any risk. The only hintof a leukemia problem has been for magnetic fields and only in children exposed to the highest fields.
The National Cancer Institute's website concludes, "there is little evidence that exposure to ELF-EMF from power lines causes leukemia, brain tumors, or any other cancers in children." Among adults, the evidence continues to show no danger, or has produced inconsistent results.
Cancer Research UK, a United Kingdom group similar to the Cancer Society, reportsthat even if a link were confirmed, "the impact would be small -- only around one percent of childhood leukemias."
And WHO, which cautiously classified the fields as "possibly" carcinogenic a dozen years ago, currently says "the evidence for any effect remains highly controversial. However, it is clear that if electromagnetic fields do have an effect on cancer, then any increase in risk will be extremely small. The results to date contain many inconsistencies, but no large increases in risk have been found for any cancer in children or adults."
Lynch also referred us to a very recent analysis from the nonprofit Institution of Engineering and Technology. He focused on the wording suggesting that there might be a leukemia risk above a certain exposure level. But we noted that the report concludes that despite decades of research, "the existence of harmful health effects" from such power lines "remains unsubstantiated."
Lynch said that the institution's analysis was a case where you "hide the conclusion in the middle and turn back 'unswervingly' to [power] industry messaging at the end."
Lynch said exposure to the electromagnetic fields from power lines "has been associated with childhood leukemia and other diseases."
Lynch, when questioned, says he's saying there is just an association, and he's not asserting that EMFs cause cancer and other diseases.
We believe the average reader would come away believing that Lynch was saying there is a direct link and a real danger, which would be a striking assertion.
When it comes to health effects, the grain of truth in Lynch's statement is that there have been some studies suggesting a link. But he's ignoring the fact that other studies and experts have concluded that there is little or no effect, and major health organizations have not found the evidence to be convincing despite decades of efforts to demonstrate a danger.
Because his claim ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, we rate it Mostly False.
(If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at firstname.lastname@example.org. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)
Most types of cancer can be put down to bad luck rather than
risk factors such as smoking, a study has suggested.
A US team were trying to explain why some tissues were millions
of times more vulnerable to cancer than others.
The results, in the journal
Science, showed two thirds of the cancer types analysed were
caused just by chance mutations rather than lifestyle.
However some of the most common and deadly cancers are still
heavily influenced by lifestyle.
And Cancer Research UK said a healthy lifestyle would still
heavily stack the odds in a person's favor.
Most types of cancer can be put down to bad luck rather than risk factors such as smoking, a study has suggested.
A US team were trying to explain why some tissues were millions of times more vulnerable to cancer than others.
The results, in the journal Science, showed two thirds of the cancer types analysed were caused just by chance mutations rather than lifestyle.
However some of the most common and deadly cancers are still heavily influenced by lifestyle.
And Cancer Research UK said a healthy lifestyle would still heavily stack the odds in a person's favour.
Time to throw caution to the wind?
So is it time to light-up, drink and eat what you want without a care in the world?
All cancer has an element of chance - a roll of the dice that
decides whether your DNA acquires a mutation that leads to cancer.
The study shows that two thirds of cancer types are simply
But the remaining third are still heavily influenced by the
choices we make.
Too much booze, time in the sun or being overweight mean we are
playing with loaded dice and the odds are not in our favor.
Remember smoking accounts for a fifth of all cancers worldwide.
These findings are a reminder that cancer is often just bad luck
and the only option is early detection.
But that's not an excuse to give up on those new year's
In the US, 6.9% of people develop lung cancer, 0.6% brain cancer
and 0.00072% get tumours in their laryngeal (voice box) cartilage at some point
in their lifetime.
Toxins from cigarette smoke could explain why lung cancer is
But the digestive system is exposed to more environmental toxins
than the brain, yet brain tumours are three times as common as those in the
Root of cancer
The team at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and
Bloomberg School of Public Health believe the way tissues regenerate is the
Old tired cells in the body are constantly being replaced with
new ones made by dividing stem cells.
But with each division comes the risk of a dangerous mutation
that moves the stem cell one step closer to being cancerous.
Bone cancer in the right leg
The researchers compared how often stem cells divided in 31
tissues in the body over a lifetime with the odds of a cancer in those
They concluded that two thirds of cancer types were "due to
bad luck" from dividing stem cells picking up mutations that could not be
These cancer types included Glioblastoma (brain cancers), small
intestine cancers and pancreatic cancers.
Cristian Tomasetti, an assistant professor of oncology and one
of the researchers, said a focus on prevention would
not prevent such cancers.
"If two thirds of cancer incidence across tissues is
explained by random DNA mutations that occur when stem cells divide, then
changing our lifestyle and habits will be a huge help in preventing certain
cancers, but this may not be as effective for a variety of others.
"We should focus more resources on finding ways to detect
such cancers at early, curable stages."
The remaining third of cancer types, which are affected by lifestyle factors, viruses or a heightened family risk, include some of the most common:
Basal cell carcinoma -
a type of skin cancer made more common by too much UV exposure
Lung cancer - strongly
linked to smoking
Colon cancer - increased
by poor diet and family risk genes
Two common types of cancer - breast and prostate - were not
analysed as the researchers could not find a consistent rate of stem cell
division in those tissues.
Separate research by Cancer Research UK shows more than four in
10 of the total number of cancers were down to lifestyle.
Dr Emma Smith, senior science information officer at the
charity, told the BBC: "We estimate that more than four in 10 cancers
could be prevented by lifestyle changes, like not smoking, keeping a healthy
weight, eating a healthy diet and cutting back on alcohol.
"Making these changes is not a guarantee against cancer,
but it stacks the odds in our favor.
"It's vital that we continue making progress to detect
cancer earlier and improve treatments, but helping people understand how they
can reduce their risk of developing cancer in the first place remains crucial
in tackling cancer."