Dear colleagues
May I suggest the following article to your attention. Based on historical research by the author, a Swiss engineer and radio pioneer, the first part featured below highlights how the telecommunication and electric utility industries managed to hijack and divert the decision-making process of the agencies tasked with regulating the electromagnetic radiation most humans are exposed to nowadays. This might not be entirely new to most of you, but I'm sure you'll appreciate this fresh, revealing exposé of the devious manoeuvering that has allowed a multitrillion dollar industry to get its way to the detriment of the countless EHS sufferers of their rampaging invasion of many segments of the radio spectrum.
Jean Hudon
PS You might also be interested to see HERE the Patent to reduce electrosmog deposed in 2003 by Swisscom (controlling 60% of the telecom market in Switzerland) and published in 2004 by the World Intellectual Property Organization - see the description HERE. This is featured in another article by Pierre Dubochet (available only in French). Technical solutions DO EXIST. What is sorely missing is the political will to make their industry-wide implementation mandatory. Incidentally, elections are a good moment to try to bring this issue to the forefront as exemplified by the campaign launched in Canada by Canadian for Safe Technology. See Candidates Who Care and emulate wherever possible in your own country. The French group Robin des toits did someting similar in 2012.
The Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Man
(Translation by Meris Michaels - Sept. 14, 2015)
Since the use of microwave emitters in the 1930's, we have observed biological effects. In some cases, harmless, in others, dangerous.
At the end of the 1960's, microwave experts from Eastern Europe produced a document showing that exposure of workers and members of the military to microwaves at non-thermal levels for many years results in, among others: fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, change in heart rate, hypo- and hypertension, somnolence, insomnia, troubles concentrating, skin allergies, increase in numbers of lymphocytes, perturbation of the electroencephalogram, and damage to sense organs.
From the moon to the mobile phone
In 1969, Motorola, the American inventor of the transceiver and walkie-talkie, transmitted the voice of Neil Armstrong, walking on the moon. Its next objective was a GSM mobile phone network. More than 100 million dollars were invested before the commercialization of its radiotelephones in 1983. In the medium term, the mobile phone could well be a colossal financial manna provided that the countless reports signaling risks of exposure to EMF were stifled.
Thus, in 1974, experts like Tanner, Bigu del Blanco and Sierra observed that several minutes of exposure to EMF at 27 MHz emitted by a radio transmitter of 5 watts (a current mobile phone with G of 2 watts) is sufficient to cause a significant loss of myelin(1). This substance surrounds the nerve fiber and conducts nerve impulses. Research has shown that pulsed microwaves - this extremely low frequency (ELF) pulse which optimizes the signal and reduces the technology costs - generate more metabolic disturbances compared to a continuous signal at the same average power density.
We remember the affair at the American Embassy in Moscow disclosed by the press in 1976. The premises were irradiated by microwaves at around 6 V/m(2). Ambassador Stoessel suffered from ocular hemorrhages and a blood disorder. Three men died of cancer, five women underwent a mastectomy linked to cancer. Neither a hypothetical risk nor an abstract risk, exposure to microwave EMF is harmful at non-thermal levels. How does one develop wireless technologies in this context?
First, by taking the lead in legalizing what one calls indicative limit values in toxicology. Second, by replacing the precautionary principle, susceptible to restraining litigation, with the principle of technology watch, that is, observing the health impact over several decades while awaiting the development of scientific methods showing absolute proof of harm. This is the famous "we don't know". Two dominant organizations support these strategies: the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the EMF department at WHO.
Michael Repacholi chaired the study groups at WHO from 1978. He also belonged to a group which established ICNIRP in 1992. Repacholi presided over this commission which comprises twelve other member scientists, some of whom occupy top positions in the industry. Repacholi founded and headed the research department on the effects of EMF at WHO during the period when safety norms were established, between 1996 and 2006. Can we really believe the president of these institutions was actually defending public health?
Can we really imagine this man supporting citizens against aggressive industrialists? It was the opposite, according to David Leloup of Mediattitudes(3). Repacholi was acting on behalf of the industry. In 1990, this man supported an Australian electricity company against landowners in New South Wales who were opposed to the installation of a high voltage power line (HT) on their property. In 1995, he assisted Bell South in installing a relay antenna near a nursery in Christchurch.
Later, by downplaying studies showing the increase in the risk of child leukemia near power lines, Repacholi supported the Connecticut Light and Power Co. On 3 August 2000, Michael Repacholi, the man who influenced all national radiation protection associations worldwide, admitted before the Court of the Australian Senate that limiting exposure to wireless radiation is not based on science. It was negotiated between trade unions (industrial) and the government of that period*.
Anticipating the risk of legal action and buying time
ICNIRP found an approach to safeguard the industry which seemed scientific. A model filled with a homogenous fluid gel was subjected to EMF. At 61 V/m during six minutes, the heating of the gel was inferior to the regulatory thermal capacity of the human body. ICNIRP's communication was clever: although not specifying any safety or health value, it was perceived as such. It was the tour de force wording of communication specialists destined to anticipate the risk of legal actions relating to products and services.
The numerous bias in the guide published by ICNIRP make this document irrelevant for evaluating realistic exposure limits, but who cares. It used all its influence, including its intimate connections with WHO. Objective: to have high thresholds of exposure accepted in a maximum number of countries. The EMF department at WHO retracted the former "unsafe" proclamations and reverted to the old theory of radiophobia.
In 1958, while the government was preparing the legal basis for nuclear electricity, WHO snubbed its foes in its report 151: The appearance of "a source of energy of such shattering possibilities as atomic power will cause strong psychological reactions, and... some of these will probably have to be considered as more or less pathological." It repeated this credo with symptoms due to non-thermal exposure to EMF: There also exist certain elements indicating that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric disorders, as well as reactions to stress resulting from fear of eventual health effects.
Aware of the safety issues, European insurance companies excluded risks linked to EMF in their coverage**. For our federal authorities, protection of health due to EMF is a challenge. In drafting the Ordinance on Protection Against Non-Ionizing Radiation (ORNI), Switzerland, neither exemplary nor rigorous, chose to base itself on the recommendations of ICNIRP. It legalized a density which could go up to 61 V/m for fixed installations emitting between 2 and 300 GHz. Mobile devices (smartphones, Wi-Fi etc.) are excluded from ORNI because "we must be sure not to create unacceptable obstructions to business."
Science shows that the penetration of EMF is greater in children than in adults. Olsen(4) concluded that children exposed in utero or during the first seven years of their life to low doses of EMF have an 80% risk of behavioral disorders at age seven. Carlo(5) indicated a link between wireless technology and child autism, which is increasing rapidly.
The convenience of Wi-Fi is attractive, but it causes a significant addition of EMF, including to children and young people, fond of wireless. This pollution carries increased risk of neurological and cognitive disorders. We have seen pulsed microwave radiation impairing memory and attention. The risk of headaches and dizziness increases with irradiation. In addition, hyperactivity and chronic insomnia may occur. How to be successful in schooling and studies if the environment affects attention and memory? Can we take the risk of threatening the future of our children? Can we expose them to radiation with cumulative effects in order to avoid a few meters of wire?
* "The standard was developed primarily on the international standard at the time and follows the international standard except in one region, called the microwave region. There was so much discontent about this that the level ended up being a negotiated level. It was not based on the science. Everything was based on the science up to that point, but the last part was not based on the science-it was negotiated between the unions and the government at the time.
(...) Sen. ALLISON (Chair) - But what is the science that tells you what the effect is at that point? What I am trying to get at is: what informs the current proposal in terms of the science, precisely? Dr. REPACHOLI - The studies that have been done have indicated that an SAR of four watt per kilogram. Sen. ALLISON (Chair) - Which studies are these? Dr. REPACHOLI - These are all the animal studies, the ones that were... Sen. ALLISON (Chair) - From the seventies? Dr. REPACHOLI - The seventies and eighties, yes. These are the early studies on primates. It was indicated that four watt per kilogram seemed to be a threshold, above which there were changes in behaviour. Sen. ALLISON (Chair) - Unusual behaviour? Dr. REPACHOLI - Yes. Below that, there did not seem to be any, unless the environmental temperatures were high and then that four watt per kilogram came down to one watt per kilogram. Sen. ALLISON (Chair) - Given the sort of research work that has happened since the seventies, that seems to me to be rather imprecise and not terribly scientific, especially in terms of biological responses. It does not sound very sophisticated. (...) Sen. ALLISON (Chair) - All of this is based on animal studies, behavioural studies with primates? Dr. REPACHOLI - Yes..."
**" 61. In connection with the proven or potential risks of electromagnetic fields, it should also be noted that after a Lloyd's report, insurance companies tended to withhold coverage for risks linked with electromagnetic fields under civil liability policies, in the same way as, for example, genetically modified organisms or asbestos, which is hardly reassuring given the potential risks that stem from these electromagnetic fields."
Feel free to share widely.
There is more than enough conclusive evidence today of potential and even life-threatening harm to humans from EMF exposure to warrant the worldwide application of the precautionary principle...
"The Precautionary Principle is a strategy to cope with possible risks where scientific understanding is yet incomplete, such as the risks of nano technology, genetically modified organisms and systemic insecticides.
The Precautionary Principle is defined as follows:
When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm. Morally unacceptable harm refers to harm to humans or the environment that is
* threatening to human life or health, or
* serious and effectively irreversible, or
* inequitable to present or future generations, or
* imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those affected.
The judgement of plausibility should be grounded in scientific analysis. Analysis should be ongoing so that chosen actions are subject to review. Uncertainty may apply to, but need not be limited to, causality or the bounds of the possible harm.
Actions are interventions that are undertaken before harm occurs that seek to avoid or diminish the harm. Actions should be chosen that are proportional to the seriousness of the potential harm, with consideration of their positive and negative consequences, and with an assessment of the moral implications of both action and inaction. The choice of action should be the result of a participatory process.
Also recommended...
(...) While Dr Kheifets worked at WHO, her boss Mike Repacholi worked hand in hand with power companies, Slesin, who is Editor of the highly regarded newsletter Microwave News, revealed in October 2005. Repacholi invited six of their representatives to assist Kheifets in drafting and editing WHO's Monograph No. 238 Environmental Health Criteria on residential (60-Hertz) EMFs, published in 2007.
The destruction of the myelin sheath insulating the nerve fibers is illustrated HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment