Allergies are definitely on the rise but probably not for the reasons stated by this author. There is not only a correlation between the rise in ambient Electrosmog (i.e. EMR) and the rise in allergies, but there are numerous scientific studies which definitely show causation. And then of course there is a plethora of anecdotal evidence to add to the above.
peace
paul
Pharmacy Times, 2005
Are Allergies on the Rise?
Guido R. Zanni, PhD
An unknown comedian once said, "The difference between an itch and an allergy is about a hundred bucks."It is ironic that the cost of an allergy-related office visit is ~$100, and such visits have increased dramatically in the past decade. Epidemiologists suspect that heightened public awareness and improved diagnostic testing are the underlying causes of the increase, but research indicates otherwise. Studies have confirmed that allergy-related sniffling, red and itchy eyes, and rash are more common today than previously, particularly in such industrialized countries as England, Canada, Greenland, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, and the United States. Nonindustrialized countries and rural areas have lower prevalence rates.1-7
In the United States, for example, rhinitis, the common symptom of allergy, increased by 31% from 1985 to 1995; pediatric peanut allergies doubled from 1997 to 2002; and asthma increased from 35 cases per 1000 in 1982 to 56 cases per 1000 in 1994.2,5,8 Up to 50% of people in developed areas may suffer from some form of allergy9 (Table 1).
The Culprits
Sensitivity to pollens, dust mite droppings, and animal fur accounts for ~90% of allergies.11 Sensitivity to food and food additives (Table 2), insects, latex, chemicals, industrial ingredients, and particulates in the air is responsible for the bulk of the remaining cases. Because a person can become allergic to any environmental agent, allergists find accurate diagnosis of idiopathic allergens challenging.
Why the immune system mounts an attack against seemingly harmless agents baffles researchers. Because the immune system treats the harmless agent as a threat, B lymphocytes produce immunoglobulin E antibody (IgE). IgE attaches to mast cells such as those present in the nasal and bronchial passages, resulting in histamine release. Inflammation and allergy symptoms follow. Once sensitized, mast cells automatically release histamine when the invading agent reappears. Because IgE can sensitize cells anywhere in the body, individuals' symptoms vary (eg, a cat may produce hives in one person and generate sneezing in another person).9,11
Allergy should not be confused with atopy. Atopy indicates that a person has developed a symptomless sensitization.
The Increase in Allergies
A genetic susceptibility to allergens has been established, but a shift in the human gene pool is an unlikely explanation for the increased prevalence of allergies. Shifts in population-based traits require several generations to emerge; yet researchers have reported allergy increases within the same generation. In one study, for example, frozen blood samples were randomly selected from syphilis screening initiatives conducted in 1987 and compared with those randomly selected from a 1998 HIV screening. The presence of IgE to common allergens in the 1998 sample was double that of the earlier sample.7
Two of the numerous theories proposed have empirical support. They are the allergen exposure hypothesis and the hygiene hypothesis.
Allergen Exposure Hypothesis
Simply stated, increased exposure to allergens leads to increased sensitivity. Today, people eat diverse and exotic foods, many containing artificial preservatives and additives; spend more time indoors, increasing contact with dust, synthetic materials, and household chemicals; are more likely to maintain pets indoors; and are exposed to more pollution. The exposure theory is supported by the increased prevalence of allergies primarily in developed countries, and mostly in urban environments, as opposed to rural communities.6
Hygiene Hypothesis
This theory supposes that inadequate exposure to genuinely harmful agents leads to immune dysfunction. Under normal circumstances, the immune system is exposed to various viral, bacterial, fungal, or parasitic challenges and becomes strengthened following successful defenses. Today's public health successes, coupled with the increased use of antibiotics, minimize opportunities to mount successful attacks against genuine attackers. IgE is still present, however, and, in the absence of harmful agents, it begins attacking harmless environmental substances.6
Supporting evidence is ample. Children who have had early infections demonstrate less atopy. Populations in which parasitic infestation is common manifest lower levels of hay fever and asthma. People who have had measles have fewer allergies, as do children with multiple siblings.6 Animal studies also support the hygiene theory; mice treated with antibiotics showed greater sensitivity to mold allergens.12 The hygiene theory, however, cannot satisfactorily explain the high prevalence of allergies in poor inner-city housing, where potential exposure to harmful agents is increased. Similarly, gross antibiotic sales do not correlate with prevalence shifts.13
The increase in allergies is most probably due to the interaction of several factors, including genetic susceptibility. Until researchers can identify true causal factors, as opposed to enhancing factors, theories will coexist.9
Treatment
Avoidance strategies work for some allergies (eg, latex), but avoidance is impossible for many sufferers, and symptom management is essential. Oral antihistamines and decongestants remain the cornerstones of treatment; newer, second-generation, nonsedating antihistamines result in fewer side effects. Other treatment options include anti-inflammatory agents such as mast cell stabilizers (eg, cromolyn, nedocromil, lodoxamide); corticosteroids; antileukotrienes (eg, zileuton); and bronchodilators, including betaagonists, anticholinergics, and theophylline. Antihistamines combined with corticosteroids seem to produce maximum effect for many people.14
A new therapeutic class, anti-IgE, was FDA-approved in 2003 with omalizumab. This drug inhibits free IgE, preventing it from attaching to allergens. Current use, however, is restricted to patients with allergic asthma whose symptoms are inadequately controlled by other treatments. It must be administered subcutaneously every 2 to 4 weeks and dosed to body weight and total serum IgE levels.14
Future allergy treatments will be highly selective IgE synthesis inhibitors, as well as targeted long-acting mast cell inhibitors (current agents are short-acting). Toward that goal, several monoclonal antibodies are already in development, with preliminary positive results.9
Education
A survey has found that 83% of allergy sufferers named medications as their first treatment option, with 80% believing medications to be safe.15 The majority (61%) reported advertisements as their information source,15 suggesting that the public may be underinformed about side effects, drug interactions, and contraindications for comorbid conditions.
Approximately 52% of allergy patients seek pharmacist counseling.11 Given the undisputed increase in allergies, patients'questions are numerous, and pharmacists should be equipped with an arsenal of counseling tips.
Dr. Zanni is a psychologist and health-systems consultant based in Alexandria, Va.
For a list of references, send a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: References Department, Attn. A. Stahl, Pharmacy Times, 241 Forsgate Drive, Jamesburg, NJ 08831; or send an e-mail request to: astahl@ascendmedia.com.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Worst Hay Fever Season Ever
Obviously, this reporter isn't aware of the connection betweeen an increase in Electrosmog and an increase in Allergies.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=631582005
http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/344/C4482/
http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?Article=3548
http://www.emf-health.com/chinese.php?u=/blog/2005/12/cell-phone-radiation-may-trigger.html
Duh! It is no wonder why one out of every four children suffer from atopic dermititis (eczema) and one out of four adults suffer from hay fever in heavily electropolluted Japan. When will they put the pieces together? When will they connect the dots?
Personally, I suddenly started to get hay fever around 1993 just when cell phones started to become popular in Japan. Though I never connected with an increase in ambient microwave radiation at the time, over the years my allergies just progressively got worse and worse and I kept on getting stricter and stricter about what I ate. However, I did notice that when I left Japan to go on short visits to other countries that my allergies would suddenly and mysteriously get better. Finally, after getting CFIDS they became unbearably worse and this started me on my search to look for the cause and the cure for this illness. Along the way, I discovered that microwaves and other forms of EMR are very likely indeed responsible for the drastic increase in allergies worldwide. There is research showing a causal effect and there is the correlation between the increase in ambient electromagnetic radiation and the increase in allergies. The Hygiene Theory holds no water whatsover. It is only correlative and there is no research showing cause and effect to back it up.
paul
THE RAPE OF SPRING: HEALTH CONCERNS OVER CROP
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/wildlife/article2533988.ece
It's the worst hay fever season ever. And more of the English countryside than ever before is carpeted in garish oilseed rape. Are the two phenomena connected? Jeremy Laurance investigates
Published: 12 May 2007
From the air, England looks as if it is preparing for an emergency. Where once farmers grew wheat and barley, a tide of oilseed rape, bolstered by EU subsidies, has swept across the country. Slicks of Day-Glo yellow lie daubed across the land, cladding the countryside in a protective suit, as if it were caught in an intercontinental crisis. Some people think that is exactly what it is.
There are those who admire the luminous brilliance of the crop, and there are those who complain it has created a garish patchwork which has despoiled the glory of the English countryside. But concern about the spread of oilseed rape is not only aesthetic. This year, with record temperatures and low rainfall in April, it flowered early, releasing its sweet, cloying scent along with sackfuls of pollen. And pollen, to Britain's 13 million hay fever sufferers, spells trouble.
As the flowering season has peaked in what threatens to be a record year for hayfever, so have complaints from people living and working in, or merely passing through, the areas where oilseed rape is grown. Stricken by rasping throats and itchy eyes, some claim the yellow tide is destroying our health as well as our countryside. Others insist it is unfairly blamed.
Two letters, published in The Daily Telegraph last week, encapsulate the dispute. Anna Dickie of Sudbury, Suffolk, described bitterly how the county was "blighted by smelly fields of rape which brings misery to hayfever sufferers and asthmatics". Even the family pets suffered, she added. "We can't hang washing out to dry as clothes become impregnated with rape pollen. My asthmatic cat is particularly affected by this horrid crop and has to be treated with daily inhalers and pills at this time of year."
A couple of days later Chris Clarke from Moelfre, Abergele in north Wales, sprang to the crop's defence. "We consider ourselves blessed by large areas of rape. Our bees are busy now converting its nectar into honey in one of the best and earliest starts to the beekeeping season in memory.
"My wife who suffers seriously from hayfever, wanders among our hives at the rape fields without ill effects. Closer to home she suffers and we think it likely that birch, lilac and other pollen is the cause."
Who is right? Allergy specialists favour Mr Clarke's analysis. In the league table of hayfever triggers, oilseed rape ranks low. True allergy to rapeseed pollen is rare, specialists say. On the other hand they do not dismiss Ms Dickie's view. Even though true allergy to rapeseed pollen may be rare, it can still cause widespread irritation to large numbers of people thanks to the organic compounds it gives off and its garish colour and overwhelming smell. Whether this reaction is correctly labelled "hayfever" or not is immaterial to those who suffer its symptoms.
This year the hayfever season has started earlier and threatens to last longer than ever. Boots, the high street chemists, released figures last week showing sales of hayfever remedies were up 146 per cent compared with the same time last year. In inner cities, where pollution is worst, sales are up even higher at 177 per cent above last year.
Conditions have been ideal for pollen production with plenty of rain in January and February followed by a long hot spring promoting good grass growth. People have been out and about in the hot weather at weekends, exposed to tree pollen, and there is already some grass pollen, the main hayfever trigger, about.
Professor Jean Emberlin, director of the National Pollen and Aerobiology Research Unit at the University of Worcester, said: "We could be facing a record year for hayfever. In 2006 we had enough rain to keep the season going and we saw record amounts of pollen across the Midlands. This year it will depend on how much rainfall we get.
"We had enough rain in the spring to get good grass growth so we are expecting the main grass pollen season to start in the last week of May, a week or 10 days earlier than average."
Hayfever is critically dependent on the weather. As temperatures rise, pollen seasons are lengthening and the pollen itself is provoking a more powerful reaction, especially in cities where pollution increases the irritant effect.
This year, the Meteorological Office says there is a 70 per cent chance of unusually hot weather and a one in eight chance of a heatwave. Global warming was identified as a factor behind rising pollen counts by the UN's Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change in 2001. Last year had one of the warmest summers on record and one of the worst for hayfever.
Professor Emberlin said: "Temperature stress, pollution input and climate change all add up to more pollen, a longer pollen season and pollen that is more allergenic."
The message is that if you think it is bad now, it is bound to get worse over the next few weeks. Most people currently suffering symptoms are reacting to tree pollen, made worse, in towns and cities, by car exhausts. Air pollution from exhaust fumes seems to have an enhancing effect on the release of allergenic substances, particularly from birch pollen. Pollen in cities thus causes more allergy than pollen in the country.
By the end of the month we will be in the peak grass pollen season, which affects many more people, and is the commonest cause of hayfever. Even though this is still a week or two away, there is already a fair amount around, because of the warm conditions.
But when people cough and itch, like Ms Dickie's cat, they look around for the cause and the strong smelling, canary yellow fields of oilseed rape are the most obvious culprit.
An estimated 600,000 hectares of land are covered in the bobbing yellow flower heads, which were practically unknown in Britain 30 years ago. Production last year grew by 17 per cent and is predicted to top two million tonnes next year by the Department for Rural Affairs.
For farmers it turns a healthy profit with unlimited demand for the seed as a biofuel - much of the UK's production goes to Germany to make biodiesel - and to make "extra virgin rapeseed oil", an alternative to olive oil.
Its unhealthy effects on the populace remain a matter of dispute. Until the 1980s, when the acreage under cultivation rapidly increased, there was no public suspicion that it might be harming health. Nor was the anxiety in Britain seen in other countries.
As the crop advanced across the country during the 1980s and 1990s, concern mounted and in 1996 the UK Medical Research Council decided it was time for a closer look. Its Institute of Environment and Health in Southampton launched an investigation which concluded there was "no clear evidence" that oilseed rape has adverse effects on health. Allergy to rape pollen was rare, even in areas of intense cultivation, and those affected tended to be multiply sensitive to other substances with no indication that rapeseed was the trigger.
Rapeseed pollen is sticky and heavy and transmitted by insects (unlike grass pollen which is disseminated on the wind). So it does not travel far and only those within 50 metres or so of a field are likely to be in range. Some experts have suggested that mould which affects the crop during seed ripening could trigger a reaction but the researchers found no evidence for this.
However, oilseed rape does give off volatile organic compounds such as terpenes and aldehydes which could account for its irritant effect on the mucous membranes of the eyes, mouth and throat. Yet the Southampton researchers remained puzzled as to why in other rapeseed-growing countries such as France, Germany and Denmark, there was no public concern.
Specialists today say that in the 10 years since publication of the MRC report, no significant new evidence has come to light to alter its conclusions.
Professor Pamela Ewan, consultant allergist at Addenbrookes Hospital, said: "The amount of allergy to rapeseed is very low. People think they are allergic to it because of its bright colour and powerful smell when they are really allergic to other pollens that they can't see. There could be some adverse reaction to the volatile chemicals the plant produces. But I think the perception is much greater than the reality. Grass pollen is by far the most potent cause of hayfever in Britain, though it is different in other countries. In the US the main cause is ragweed."
Others take a less rigorous approach to the science, preferring to emphasise sufferers' reported experience. Muriel Simmons, spokeswoman for the charity Allergy UK, said: "Rapeseed very rarely triggers an allergic response, but it may be an irritant. For sufferers from rhinitis or asthma it may exacerbate their symptoms through the fumes it gives off. The best way to deal with this is to close the windows of the car if you are driving through an area of oilseed rape. If you are affected, the symptoms disappear in 10 minutes once you are through the area."
She added: "I think it is worrying that we are seeing the yellow tide advancing and the number of fields turned over to rapeseed spreading. Whether it is affecting the immune system or not is irrelevant - it is making a lot of people feel very uncomfortable."
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=631582005
http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/344/C4482/
http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?Article=3548
http://www.emf-health.com/chinese.php?u=/blog/2005/12/cell-phone-radiation-may-trigger.html
Duh! It is no wonder why one out of every four children suffer from atopic dermititis (eczema) and one out of four adults suffer from hay fever in heavily electropolluted Japan. When will they put the pieces together? When will they connect the dots?
Personally, I suddenly started to get hay fever around 1993 just when cell phones started to become popular in Japan. Though I never connected with an increase in ambient microwave radiation at the time, over the years my allergies just progressively got worse and worse and I kept on getting stricter and stricter about what I ate. However, I did notice that when I left Japan to go on short visits to other countries that my allergies would suddenly and mysteriously get better. Finally, after getting CFIDS they became unbearably worse and this started me on my search to look for the cause and the cure for this illness. Along the way, I discovered that microwaves and other forms of EMR are very likely indeed responsible for the drastic increase in allergies worldwide. There is research showing a causal effect and there is the correlation between the increase in ambient electromagnetic radiation and the increase in allergies. The Hygiene Theory holds no water whatsover. It is only correlative and there is no research showing cause and effect to back it up.
paul
THE RAPE OF SPRING: HEALTH CONCERNS OVER CROP
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/wildlife/article2533988.ece
It's the worst hay fever season ever. And more of the English countryside than ever before is carpeted in garish oilseed rape. Are the two phenomena connected? Jeremy Laurance investigates
Published: 12 May 2007
From the air, England looks as if it is preparing for an emergency. Where once farmers grew wheat and barley, a tide of oilseed rape, bolstered by EU subsidies, has swept across the country. Slicks of Day-Glo yellow lie daubed across the land, cladding the countryside in a protective suit, as if it were caught in an intercontinental crisis. Some people think that is exactly what it is.
There are those who admire the luminous brilliance of the crop, and there are those who complain it has created a garish patchwork which has despoiled the glory of the English countryside. But concern about the spread of oilseed rape is not only aesthetic. This year, with record temperatures and low rainfall in April, it flowered early, releasing its sweet, cloying scent along with sackfuls of pollen. And pollen, to Britain's 13 million hay fever sufferers, spells trouble.
As the flowering season has peaked in what threatens to be a record year for hayfever, so have complaints from people living and working in, or merely passing through, the areas where oilseed rape is grown. Stricken by rasping throats and itchy eyes, some claim the yellow tide is destroying our health as well as our countryside. Others insist it is unfairly blamed.
Two letters, published in The Daily Telegraph last week, encapsulate the dispute. Anna Dickie of Sudbury, Suffolk, described bitterly how the county was "blighted by smelly fields of rape which brings misery to hayfever sufferers and asthmatics". Even the family pets suffered, she added. "We can't hang washing out to dry as clothes become impregnated with rape pollen. My asthmatic cat is particularly affected by this horrid crop and has to be treated with daily inhalers and pills at this time of year."
A couple of days later Chris Clarke from Moelfre, Abergele in north Wales, sprang to the crop's defence. "We consider ourselves blessed by large areas of rape. Our bees are busy now converting its nectar into honey in one of the best and earliest starts to the beekeeping season in memory.
"My wife who suffers seriously from hayfever, wanders among our hives at the rape fields without ill effects. Closer to home she suffers and we think it likely that birch, lilac and other pollen is the cause."
Who is right? Allergy specialists favour Mr Clarke's analysis. In the league table of hayfever triggers, oilseed rape ranks low. True allergy to rapeseed pollen is rare, specialists say. On the other hand they do not dismiss Ms Dickie's view. Even though true allergy to rapeseed pollen may be rare, it can still cause widespread irritation to large numbers of people thanks to the organic compounds it gives off and its garish colour and overwhelming smell. Whether this reaction is correctly labelled "hayfever" or not is immaterial to those who suffer its symptoms.
This year the hayfever season has started earlier and threatens to last longer than ever. Boots, the high street chemists, released figures last week showing sales of hayfever remedies were up 146 per cent compared with the same time last year. In inner cities, where pollution is worst, sales are up even higher at 177 per cent above last year.
Conditions have been ideal for pollen production with plenty of rain in January and February followed by a long hot spring promoting good grass growth. People have been out and about in the hot weather at weekends, exposed to tree pollen, and there is already some grass pollen, the main hayfever trigger, about.
Professor Jean Emberlin, director of the National Pollen and Aerobiology Research Unit at the University of Worcester, said: "We could be facing a record year for hayfever. In 2006 we had enough rain to keep the season going and we saw record amounts of pollen across the Midlands. This year it will depend on how much rainfall we get.
"We had enough rain in the spring to get good grass growth so we are expecting the main grass pollen season to start in the last week of May, a week or 10 days earlier than average."
Hayfever is critically dependent on the weather. As temperatures rise, pollen seasons are lengthening and the pollen itself is provoking a more powerful reaction, especially in cities where pollution increases the irritant effect.
This year, the Meteorological Office says there is a 70 per cent chance of unusually hot weather and a one in eight chance of a heatwave. Global warming was identified as a factor behind rising pollen counts by the UN's Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change in 2001. Last year had one of the warmest summers on record and one of the worst for hayfever.
Professor Emberlin said: "Temperature stress, pollution input and climate change all add up to more pollen, a longer pollen season and pollen that is more allergenic."
The message is that if you think it is bad now, it is bound to get worse over the next few weeks. Most people currently suffering symptoms are reacting to tree pollen, made worse, in towns and cities, by car exhausts. Air pollution from exhaust fumes seems to have an enhancing effect on the release of allergenic substances, particularly from birch pollen. Pollen in cities thus causes more allergy than pollen in the country.
By the end of the month we will be in the peak grass pollen season, which affects many more people, and is the commonest cause of hayfever. Even though this is still a week or two away, there is already a fair amount around, because of the warm conditions.
But when people cough and itch, like Ms Dickie's cat, they look around for the cause and the strong smelling, canary yellow fields of oilseed rape are the most obvious culprit.
An estimated 600,000 hectares of land are covered in the bobbing yellow flower heads, which were practically unknown in Britain 30 years ago. Production last year grew by 17 per cent and is predicted to top two million tonnes next year by the Department for Rural Affairs.
For farmers it turns a healthy profit with unlimited demand for the seed as a biofuel - much of the UK's production goes to Germany to make biodiesel - and to make "extra virgin rapeseed oil", an alternative to olive oil.
Its unhealthy effects on the populace remain a matter of dispute. Until the 1980s, when the acreage under cultivation rapidly increased, there was no public suspicion that it might be harming health. Nor was the anxiety in Britain seen in other countries.
As the crop advanced across the country during the 1980s and 1990s, concern mounted and in 1996 the UK Medical Research Council decided it was time for a closer look. Its Institute of Environment and Health in Southampton launched an investigation which concluded there was "no clear evidence" that oilseed rape has adverse effects on health. Allergy to rape pollen was rare, even in areas of intense cultivation, and those affected tended to be multiply sensitive to other substances with no indication that rapeseed was the trigger.
Rapeseed pollen is sticky and heavy and transmitted by insects (unlike grass pollen which is disseminated on the wind). So it does not travel far and only those within 50 metres or so of a field are likely to be in range. Some experts have suggested that mould which affects the crop during seed ripening could trigger a reaction but the researchers found no evidence for this.
However, oilseed rape does give off volatile organic compounds such as terpenes and aldehydes which could account for its irritant effect on the mucous membranes of the eyes, mouth and throat. Yet the Southampton researchers remained puzzled as to why in other rapeseed-growing countries such as France, Germany and Denmark, there was no public concern.
Specialists today say that in the 10 years since publication of the MRC report, no significant new evidence has come to light to alter its conclusions.
Professor Pamela Ewan, consultant allergist at Addenbrookes Hospital, said: "The amount of allergy to rapeseed is very low. People think they are allergic to it because of its bright colour and powerful smell when they are really allergic to other pollens that they can't see. There could be some adverse reaction to the volatile chemicals the plant produces. But I think the perception is much greater than the reality. Grass pollen is by far the most potent cause of hayfever in Britain, though it is different in other countries. In the US the main cause is ragweed."
Others take a less rigorous approach to the science, preferring to emphasise sufferers' reported experience. Muriel Simmons, spokeswoman for the charity Allergy UK, said: "Rapeseed very rarely triggers an allergic response, but it may be an irritant. For sufferers from rhinitis or asthma it may exacerbate their symptoms through the fumes it gives off. The best way to deal with this is to close the windows of the car if you are driving through an area of oilseed rape. If you are affected, the symptoms disappear in 10 minutes once you are through the area."
She added: "I think it is worrying that we are seeing the yellow tide advancing and the number of fields turned over to rapeseed spreading. Whether it is affecting the immune system or not is irrelevant - it is making a lot of people feel very uncomfortable."
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Cell Phones Hurt Children Even Worse Than Adults
Cell Phones Hurt Children
Even Worse Than Adults
by William Thomas July 2003
Last April, while corporate “news managers” were guiding the attention of Americans elsewhere, a London newspaper reported on “What Cell Phones Can Do To Youngster's Brain In 2 Minutes”.
It turns out that a call lasting just two minutes can open the “blood-brain barrier” in kids as well as adults, allowing toxins in the bloodstream to cross this blood vessel gateway into the skull and attack brain cells. The same two-minutes cell phone exposure also disrupts the natural electrical activity of a child's brain for up to an hour afterwards.
“Leading medical experts now question whether it is safe for children to use mobile phones at all,” reported the Mirror. “Doctors fear that disturbed brain activity in children could lead to psychiatric and behavioral problems or impair learning ability.”
Dr Gerald Hyland says he is “extremely disturbed” by the new findings released in Marbella, Spain by the Spanish Neuro Diagnostic Research Institute.
"The results show that children's brains are affected for long periods even after very short-term use,” this mobile phone adviser to the British government explained. “Their brain wave patterns are abnormal and stay like that for a long period. This could affect their mood and ability to learn in the classroom if they have been using a phone during break time, for instance.”
Dramatic photographs from a recent Spanish study show radio waves from mobile phones penetrating deep into the brains of an adult, 10 year-old and five year-old child.
Dr. Hyland and other MDs worry that cell phone’s deep penetration into children’s brains and the resulting disruption to the subtle electronic exchanges between brain cells could cause kids to lose the ability to concentration and remember, making it impossible to learn.
Dr. Hyland also states that cell phone use is also linked with aggressive behavior in children. Previous studies show that anyone exposed to cell phone energy may experience “radical changes” in mood and behavior. Measuring relatively low microwave and radio frequency power levels in urban areas in 1975, Dr. William Blise found clinically diagnosed depression and violence. These effects may be even more pronounced in more susceptible adolescent children. [EMF Health Report March/April, 1995]
"It makes one wonder whether children, whose brains are still developing, should be using mobile phones," this MD declared.
The Spanish findings coincide with a potentially apocalyptic new survey showing that 87% of 11- to 16-year-olds own mobile phones; 40% of them spend 15 minutes or more talking each day on them, and 70% said they would not give up their cell phones in the face of government warnings.
Dr Michael Klieeisen conducted the Spanish study. "We never expected to see this continuing activity in the brain,” he told reporters. “We are worried that delicate balances that exist - such as the immunity to infection and disease - could be altered by interference with chemical balances in the brain." [Sunday Mirror Apr/04]
"This information shows there really isn't a safe amount of mobile phone use,” Dr. Hyland emphasized. “We don't know what lasting damage is being done by this exposure. If I were a parent I would now be extremely wary about allowing my children to use a mobile even for a very short period. My advice would be to avoid mobiles."
SWEDISH SCIENTIST FINDS CELL PHONE HAZARDS “TERRIFTING”
Unfortunately for anyone still in ignorance or denial about putting the equivalent of a loaded pistol to their heads and pulling the trigger, new research from Sweden’s Lund University Hospital corroborates the Spanish findings. The Swedes also found that exposure to radiation emitted by mobile handsets and neighborhood relay towers can destroy cells in the parts of the brain responsible for memory, movement and learning.
Professor Leif Salford, the neurologist who carried out 15 years of research said, “We saw opening of the blood-brain barrier even after a short exposure to radiation at the same level as mobile phones.”
Salford added, "We had already shown that mobile phone radiation can allow harmful proteins and toxins to pass through the blood-brain barrier. Now we also see a significant degree of damage to neurons in the brains of adolescent rats. If this effect is transferred to young humans the effects can be terrifying." [Daily Mail Nov6/99]
CELL PHONES EXPOSE BRAIN CELLS TO BLOODSTREAM POSIONS
A study by Finish scientist Darius Leszczynski published in the journal Differentiation shows that several hundred chemicals operating in a certain type of human brain cells could be altered by the weak microwaves broadcast by mobile phones.
The blood-brain barrier normally keeps toxins and microorganisms circulating in the blood out of the brain. But Prof Leszczynski found that at the legal limit for mobile radiation, a blood-brain barrier protein named HSP 27 became ineffectual in keeping blood poisons out of brain cells. [The Guardian June20/02]
Proteins found in the blood can, if they get to the brain, cause autoimmune diseases such as Fibromyalgia and Multiple Sclerosis. Damaged nerve cells could also lead to dementia, premature aging, and Parkinson's disease. Brain cells inflamed by cell phone conversations are also indirectly be linked to Alzheimer's disease.
In addition to these potential personal disasters, medication that under normal circumstances wouldn't be able to penetrate the blood-brain-barrier could do so and cause damage. [British Library Net Sept14/03]
MOBILE PHONES LEAD TO EARLIER ALZHEIMER'S
Scientists have discovered that prolonged exposure to radiation emitted by mobile phones, cell phone towers and hidden relay stations can destroy cells in the parts of the brain responsible for memory, movement and learning.
Professor Leif Salford said, "We can see reduced brain reserve capacity", meaning those who would normally have got Alzheimer's or dementia in old age will get it much earlier, those who would not 'normally' have got Alzheimer's or dementia during their lifespan are at greater risk of doing so, and that both will at best have a significantly diminished number of non dysfunctional brain cells and brain subsystems throughout their lives.
Neurosurgeon Leif Salford and colleagues at Lund university hospital in Sweden published data including the above 'before and after' images showing for the first time, an unambiguous link between radiation emitted by GSM mobile phones - the most common type worldwide - and brain damage.
After fifty days, the rat brains showed significant blood vessel leakage, as well as areas of shrunken damaged neurons. [British Library Net Feb5/03]
CHILDHOOD CELL PHONE USE MAY MAKE YOU SENILE AT 30
According to RFSafe.com, “A whole generation of teenagers face premature senility in the prime of their lives due to the use of mobile phones and new wireless technology.”
RFSafe.com continued: “Leif Salford, who headed the research at Sweden’s prestigious Lund University, says the voluntary exposure of the brain to microwaves from hand-held mobile phones is the largest human biological experiment ever. He is concerned that, as new wireless technology spreads, people may drown in a sea of microwaves.”
Salford said it was possible that brain neurons would repair themselves in time. [Examples of brain cell self-repair are extremely rare. –WT] But the scientist warned, neurons that would normally not become senile until people reached their 60s might now do so when they are in their 30s. [RFSafe.com Nov26/03]
PHONING YOUR CELLS
“ Cell phones” are aptly named. Every call you make, every conversation you have on a cell phone dials your cells directly. And the message is not good. Just 13% of the cells exposed to mobile phone radiation remained intact and able to function, compared with 70% of cells exposed only to the natural electromagnetic field produced by the human body. [London Observer April11/99]
HIGH FREQUENCY = HIGH RISK
It is not the power level but the frequency of electromagnetic emissions that pose the greatest danger. Even at very low power outputs of typical cell phones and cell phone relay towers, researchers have found the higher the frequency, the graver the risk.
“Very High Frequency” VHF, “Ultra High Frequency” UHF, microwaves and portable phones operating in the Gigahertz range are all high-frequency electromagnetic emission sources.
YOU ARE AN ANTENNA
“ It is well recognized that the human body becomes more transparent to RF energy as the frequency of RF energy increases,” reminds radiologist Dr. Catherina Mills.
Human brains achieve peak absorption in the UHF bands, right where cellular telecommunications operate. Human bodies act as antennas whose peak resonance frequency lies in the middle of the VHF TV band.
“As we sit watching TV, our bodies are absorbing the same energy as the set,” writes Robert Becker in his landmark book, Cross-Currents.
CELL PHONE TOWERS TARGET CHILDREN
TV, radio and cell phone towers adjacent to schools or homes could be killing kids. An Australian study by Dr. Bruce Hocking has found that children living near three TV and FM broadcast towers in Sydney had more than twice the rate of leukemia than children living more than seven miles away.
The radio frequency and microwave radiation exposures measured by Hocking are similar to those emitted by cellular towers. The highest power densities occur in a widening cone of transmission at a distance of 100 to 800 feet from towers rising 150-feet or higher above the ground. [EMF Health Report March/April/95; London Observer Apr11/99]
In New Zealand, cell phone towers are prohibited on school property because of possible health effects: learning disabilities, cancer, leukemia, DNA damage, blood disorders, brain tumors and electrical sensitivity. [EMF Health Report Mar/Apr'95]
But in the UK and USA, newly introduced “Picture Phones” featuring picture messaging are already boosting the power levels of often-disguised cell phone relay stations.
ELL PHONE TOWERS TRIGGER HYPERACTIVE LEUKEMIA
After earlier studies showed leukemia to be more common among mobile phone users, cell biologist Fiorenzo Marinelli and his National Research Council team in Bologna, Italy began exposing this increasingly common cancer to the same 900-megahertz frequency of many mobile networks operating at low-power outputs experienced by those living, working or studying in the vicinity of cell phone towers.
The good news: After just 24 hours’ continuous exposure, 20% of leukemia cells were killed by this exposure.
The disastrous news: After 48 hours’ exposure, these effects reversed. As the cancer’s survival mechanisms went into overdrive, three genes that trigger cells to multiply were turned on in the surviving cells, “making them replicate ferociously,” reported the Guardian. “The cancer, although beaten back for a brief spell, had become more aggressive.” [The Guardian Nov11/02]
More than 50 residential and occupational studies support the conclusion that exposure to electromagnetic fields promotes brain cancer, female and male breast cancer, miscarriages and other serious health maladies. [EMR Alliance Network News Spring/95]
CELL PHONES CAUSE CHILDHOOD CANCERS
It is hardly surprising that cellular phone frequencies emitting artificial electromagnetic fields alien to millions of years of evolution can trigger or intensify existing cancers.
“ I believe that 30% of all childhood cancers are associated with EMF exposure.”
declares Dr. David Carpenter, Dean at the School of Public Health State University of New York
At the University of Washington, Dr. William Guy saw nearly every test animals die from malignant tumors and immune system breakdown after five years’ exposure to low-level electromagnetic fields. The EPA found Dr. Guy’s $5 million study “to have demonstrated the carcinogenic action of this type of pulsed RF radiation.” [Washington Post June7/95]
..............
A primary school student in rural Shaoyang in central China follows fashion trends by using a mobile phone and wearing earrings and makeup.
CELL PHONES AND CANCER
The scientific evidence is absolutely conclusive: 60-hertz magnetic fields cause human cancer cells to permanently increase their rate of growth by as much as 1,600% and to develop more malignant characteristics. In 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency recommended that magnetic fields be classified as “Class B” carcinogens. This category for “probable human carcinogens” includes formaldehyde, DDT, dioxins and PCBs. [Dr.. Robert Becker, Cross-Currents]
Three major animal studies show the low-level microwave radiation similar to that emitted from wireless communication devices has a cumulative effect on cancer promotion. “At the molecular level, radio waves can disrupt growth patterns and the functioning of calls - particularly brain cells and nervous system tissue,” says Doctor A. S. Michrick. [Village Voice Sept9/97]
LOW POWER PULSES POSE EXTREME HAZARDS
Cell phone industry apologists like to claim that today’s cell phones operate at relatively low power levels. Which is true. But what they never explain is that because biological systems operate in a non-linear manner - where small effects can produce a cascade of amplifying consequences - the damaging effects of cell phones and cell phone relay towers actually increase at low power levels.
It turns out that the weak pulses emitted by today’s digital cell phones mimics the subtle signals of the body’s cells, opening internal electrical pathways to this artificial disruption of inter-cellular communication. The result can be disease and reduced brain function – including the ability to reason and remember. [British Library Net Sept14/03]
“Safety standards” set at levels required to cook human tissue would be laughably inadequate – if the effects of this scam were not so dire.
Especially worrying is the fact that even very low microwave effects seem to affect the brain. The World Health Organization calls mobile phones “safe” when they do not exceed two watts of energy absorbed per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body tissue.
But Salford and his colleges have found that even at one-ten-thousands of a watt, albumen proteins increase in the brains of half the rats examined. This means that radiation from cell phone towers can penetrate and affect the brain. It also means that anyone in the vicinity of someone using a cell phone can be affected by “second hand” radiation exposure.
The very low effects are also the ones that affect the brain the most. [British Library Net Sept14/03]
CELL PHONES AND EYE CANCER
It turns out that the higher frequencies of today’s “low power” cell phones are very close to the resonant frequency of the human skull. Cancer can be caused when radio frequency radiation released by a handheld cell phone bounces back and forth in eye sockets filled with “naturally conductive” fluid. Research from the University of Essen in Germany shows how this watery uveal layer comprising the iris and base of the retina absorbs cell phone radiation with every call, increasing the chances of contracting eye cancer. [Epidemiology Jan/01]
As a London newspaper explained, “Cells called melanocytes found in the uveal layer started growing and dividing more rapidly when exposed to microwave radiation. Since uveal melanoma starts within such cells, there is a ready-made mechanism by which mobile phone radiation might help to initiate cancer - especially in people with a genetic predisposition to the condition.” [London Sunday-Times Jan14/01]
CELL PHONES CAUSE TUMORS TO SPROUT ON SIDE OF HEAD
While users tout the “indispensable convenience” of pocket phones, which they happily did without for much of their lives, few seem to recognize the drastic inconvenience of cancer.
The risks are real - and increasingly documented. Now, Swedish biophysicists have found that the risk of developing brain tumors increases with phone use. [Daily Mail Mar17/03]
Studies show that adults who spend more than an hour a day yacking on their cell phones increase the risk of developing a rare tumor by 30% on the side of the head to which a cell phone or cordless phone is held. [Evening Standard Mar17/03]
For children, the risk is even higher.
DREAM ON
Speaking for just a half-hour a day on your cell phone also messes with your dreams. A world-renowned sleep laboratory at the University of Zurich has found that talking on a cell phone during the day significantly alters your brain’s electrical activity after you fall into a sleep that is far from restful. [BBC News June27/04[
CELL PHONES RELEASE STRESS PROTEINS
In 2002, Silva continued, the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry reported that heavy cell-phone use could cause brain cancer and other diseases by interfering with DNA repair of wayward cells.
Dr. Theodore Litovitz, a biophysicist and professor emeritus of physics at Catholic University, worked with a team of scientists looking at stress hormones released by cell phones similar to the stress proteins released by “microwaving” food.
"Because stress proteins are involved in the progression of a number of diseases, heavy daily cell-phone usage could lead to great incidence of disorders such as Alzheimer's and cancer," Litovitz lamented. [Daily Mail Nov6/99]
FORGETFUL CELL PHONE USERS
Other researchers confirm the link between the use of mobile phones - and/or exposure of similar duration to radiation from mobile phone relay towers - and the early onset of Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Neurologists claim users and non-users exposed to “second-hand” cell phone emissions from portable phones and towers could be at risk of developing Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease.
In a separate study scientists have proved mobile phones also cause long-term memory loss. [Daily Mail Nov6/99]
CELL PHONES AND ASTHMA
Often attributed to steadily poisoned air in the enclosed spaces of a sun-orbiting space colony called Earth, alarming asthma increases among children and adults are also linked to cell phone pollution. Attempting to explain the 25% increase of asthma throughout the metropolitan area of Sydney, Australia, and the 5% increase in death rates there, cell phone researcher PW Franch found the production of bronchial spasm-causing histamine to nearly double after exposure to cellular phone frequencies. This disruptive histamine production persists after the phone is shut off.
Franch also found that cellular phone frequencies inhibit our body’s cellular response to anti-asthmatic drugs. [“Bioeffects of Cellular Phone Use” by John A.G. Holt]
CELL PHONES CUT MALE FERTILITY
Of course, your offspring will never be affected by cell phone emissions if you do not – or cannot – have any. Radiation from the phones could cut male sperm production by a third, researchers from the University of Szeged, Hungary told the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
Of the remaining sperm exposed to cell phone emissions, high numbers were found to be swimming abnormally, reducing the chances of fertilization in a woman’s womb.
It was unclear whether the men were carrying their phones in their trouser pockets, or in briefcases typically carried at waist level. Professor Evers, who headed the Hungarian study, also cautioned that executive stress might also exacerbate the effects of cell phone radiation.
What is known, said Prof. Evers, is that sperm counts are decreasing sharply but less so for farmers “living in the open air, on the land and not carrying a mobile phone at all.”
CROAKING
For more than a decade, the precipitous decline in frog populations worldwide has been studied as a warning of high-levels of pollution or ultraviolet radiation from our planet’s unraveling solar shield that could also be affecting humans. So far, studies have been inconclusive.
Now it appears that electromagnetic radiation from human-made microwave and radio-frequency sources may be a major factor in declining reproduction rates. Whether in frog eggs or human embryos, from the moment of conception, subtle electrical energy powers all cell division. And the higher frequencies of today’s cell phones lie very close to the resonant frequency of rapidly replicating human DNA. [Epidemiology Jan/01]
“ It is my belief that the whole of the infertility of frog spawn, which lies on the surface of the pond, and [humans] derives from the same cause: radiowave pollution,” says Franch.
[“Effects Of 835mhz Exposure On Cell Structure And Function” by P.W. Franch, St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia]
CELL PHONE RISK “EXTREMELY HIGH”
Neil Cherry, a biophysicist at Lincoln University in Christ Church, New Zealand considers the proliferation of cell phones, microwave towers and microwave pollution to be a serious contributor to cancer, brain tumors and increasing neurological problems among the human population.
“11,000 Scandinavian cell phone users were studied and they showed significant neurological effects in a dose response manner,” remarked the PhD researcher - “such as headaches, fatigue, tiredness and dizziness. And a study in Australia also showed nausea. There is also a higher incidence of cardiac problems.”
Cherry rates the risk from using a cell phone, “extremely high.” As this respected cell phone researcher emphasizes, “The neurological effects are noticed within minutes of using a cell phone.”
DNA DAMAGED BY CELL PHONES
In 1993, the wireless industry association hired Dr. George Carlo, an epidemiologist to manage a six year, $28 million dollar research program into cell phone-cancer research. This study found genetic damage from wireless phone radiation. Dr. Carlo’s Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age blames the wireless industry and federal regulators for not following up on studies showing DNA damage and other health hazards from wireless telephone use.
”Carlo’s research concluded cell phone users were twice as likely to suffer from brain cancer and rare tumors than non-users.” ABC reported. [ABC “20/20 May26/00]
CELL PHONE DAMAGE IS FOREVER
Now working at the Microwave Therapy Centre in Perth, Australia, surgeon turned radiotherapist Dr. John Holt has spent 42 years probing the causes of cancer. Since 1996, he has been looking at cell phones as a possible cancer culprit.
Pointing to chromosome and genetic analysis by Dr. Peter Franch showing cells are permanently damaged by cellular phone, Holt warns, “Once the damage is created, the damage is irrecoverable - and inherited unchanged, from generation to generation.”
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
As more and more modern “advances” are revealed as hazardous to healthy cellular life and reproduction, it is time to shift our decisions to precaution and prevention rather than risk. Instead of asking what level of risk is acceptable, a precautionary approach asks, "How much risk can be avoided?"
In 1992, the U.S. signed on to a UN declaration endorsing the "Precautionary Principle".
Europe - but not the USA - has actually adopted this approach, with much more stringent standards for electromagnetic emissions.
DISNEY ABANDONS LUCRATIVE CHILD-CELLPHONE BRANDING
As industry watchdog Jeffrey Silva relates, in 2000, Walt Disney “discontinued licensing some of its cartoon characters for display on mobile-phone faceplates because of health questions.”
As cell phone lawsuits proliferate toward an industry-rattling precedent, it can be hoped that “cellars” will soon undergo the same stigma and public revulsion of cigarettes. In both cases, the best advice is not to light up. The lives you save may be those you most cherish.
CELL PHONE TIPS
1. Don’t use a cell phone except in an emergency.
2. Limit calls to 1 minute or less.
3. Never use a cell phone while driving. Park your vehicle and get clear of its steel structure, first.
4. Never use a cell phone near small children in or out of your car. Resist and remove cell phone relays from your neighborhood.
HANDS FREE HAZARDS
But cell phone junkies would be well advised to consider that misrepresented “precautionary measures” like headsets could actually amplify exposures through increased power requirements of “hands-free” cell phones.
Even using a hands-free phone, you could be “Yacking Yourself To Death?” advises Inter@ctive Week. Because hands-free phones use more power to operate, four year-old medical studies show that hands-free devices raise the amount of radiation being directed into the head by three times. [Inter@ctive Week Apr13/00]
CELL PHONES CARRIED IN PURSES OR WAIST POUCHES MUST BE “OFF”
Whenever your phone is turned on it sends a short burst signal to the nearest cell site every few minutes. Clinical studies have shown that the energy directed into your ovaries, liver, kidneys or similarly sensitive organs during each locator call is the same as conversation mode – even greater if the cell phone’s antenna is not extended, requires more power to complete the locator link.
Bad Reception: The Wireless Revolution in San Francisco
Bad Reception: The Wireless Revolution in San Francisco
Does the microwave radiation used by cellular phones, cellular antennas, Wi-Fi and other new wireless technologies pose a danger to human health? In "Bad Reception" San Francisco residents take to the streets and take on City Hall to protest the potentially dangerous placement of cellular phone antennas near their schools, residences and health care centers.
by Doug Loranger and Gordon Winiemko/2003...56 min
http://www.theconnextion.com/fsp_dvd.cfm?ArtistID=135&NoFrame=Yes#
Monday, July 09, 2007
REPORT WARNS OF POSSIBLE HEALTH RISKS OF GOOGLE/EARTHLINK WIFI NETWORK
REPORT WARNS OF POSSIBLE HEALTH RISKS OF GOOGLE/EARTHLINK WIFI NETWORK
A report filed by the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors warns of potential adverse health and environmental impacts that could result from a proposed Google/Earthlink WiFi network. Dr. Magda Havas, an environmental scientist at Trent University in Ontario, Canada, prepared the scientific analysis of the project, which SNAFU submitted in support of its appeal challenging Mayor Gavin Newsom's citywide WiFi proposal. The Board of Supervisors will hear SNAFU's appeal on July 10, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. in City Hall.
"SNAFU is requesting that the proposed Google/Earthlink WiFi network undergo environmental review before it is approved due to our concern about adverse health and environmental impacts," said Doug Loranger, a SNAFU spokesperson.
Dr. Havas, who specializes in electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure health effects, writes that while there have been no studies to date on the effects of exposure to WiFi, the potential for harm can best be seen by examining the scientific evidence emerging from studies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere on people living near cell phone antennas. These studies report adverse biological and health effects at radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures well below levels the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) says are safe. Havas' report discusses a number of health effects that have been documented at levels below the FCC exposure limit, including headaches, insomnia, memory loss, slowed reaction time, impaired motor function, DNA breakage and childhood leukemia. These effects occur at levels constituting a small percentage of the safety threshold set by the FCC under its RFR exposure guidelines. Havas also points out that the FCC guidelines are based on short-term exposures (30 minutes) and do not take into consideration the long-term exposures characteristic of a citywide WiFi network.
A study prepared by certified engineer Mitch Maifeld of Zenzic Research also submitted with SNAFU's appeal calculates the potential RFR exposure levels of the WiFi antennas proposed by Google/Earthlink. Maifeld prepared calculations based on exposures to residents living in close proximity to the antennas, which would be mounted on light and utility poles in neighborhoods throughout San Francisco. According to Havas, these calculations reveal that residents may be exposed to radiation levels high enough to potentially induce adverse health effects.
In scientific terms, the Google/Earthlink antennas could expose residents to RFR levels more than 50 times higher than levels associated with a significant increase in headaches, sleep disturbances and dizziness detected in a study conducted in Spain. According to Maifeld's calculations, wireless laptop users could expect exposure levels from a combination of antennas and laptop more than 350 times greater than the levels in the aforementioned Spanish study.
Havas' findings reveal a major lapse in public health protection offered by the FCC RFR exposure guidelines. Her report shows that health effects in the scientific literature appear at levels almost 10,000 times lower than those permitted by the FCC. Havas' opinions are shared by scientists worldwide who have signed the Benevento Resolution, which recommends "proposals for city-wide wireless access systems (e.g. WiFi or equivalent technologies) should require public review of potential EMF exposure." (See www.icems.eu.)
"Because the City and County of San Francisco is acting as a proprietor and party to a contract with Google/Earthlink and not in its regulatory capacity, it is not preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 from fully considering the health issues as it is when cell phone carriers seek to place antennas in the City," Loranger added.
Nancy Evans, a health science consultant with the Breast Cancer Fund, said, "We are calling upon the Board of Supervisors to apply the Precautionary Principle, which is a City ordinance, in addressing our concerns by conducting an environmental study before any decisions are made." Copies of the Havas and Maifeld reports, along with SNAFU's appeal, may be found at the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts (CWTI) website at www.energyfields.org.
For additional information, visit SNAFU?s website at www.antennafreeunion.org.
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=761
A report filed by the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors warns of potential adverse health and environmental impacts that could result from a proposed Google/Earthlink WiFi network. Dr. Magda Havas, an environmental scientist at Trent University in Ontario, Canada, prepared the scientific analysis of the project, which SNAFU submitted in support of its appeal challenging Mayor Gavin Newsom's citywide WiFi proposal. The Board of Supervisors will hear SNAFU's appeal on July 10, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. in City Hall.
"SNAFU is requesting that the proposed Google/Earthlink WiFi network undergo environmental review before it is approved due to our concern about adverse health and environmental impacts," said Doug Loranger, a SNAFU spokesperson.
Dr. Havas, who specializes in electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure health effects, writes that while there have been no studies to date on the effects of exposure to WiFi, the potential for harm can best be seen by examining the scientific evidence emerging from studies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere on people living near cell phone antennas. These studies report adverse biological and health effects at radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures well below levels the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) says are safe. Havas' report discusses a number of health effects that have been documented at levels below the FCC exposure limit, including headaches, insomnia, memory loss, slowed reaction time, impaired motor function, DNA breakage and childhood leukemia. These effects occur at levels constituting a small percentage of the safety threshold set by the FCC under its RFR exposure guidelines. Havas also points out that the FCC guidelines are based on short-term exposures (30 minutes) and do not take into consideration the long-term exposures characteristic of a citywide WiFi network.
A study prepared by certified engineer Mitch Maifeld of Zenzic Research also submitted with SNAFU's appeal calculates the potential RFR exposure levels of the WiFi antennas proposed by Google/Earthlink. Maifeld prepared calculations based on exposures to residents living in close proximity to the antennas, which would be mounted on light and utility poles in neighborhoods throughout San Francisco. According to Havas, these calculations reveal that residents may be exposed to radiation levels high enough to potentially induce adverse health effects.
In scientific terms, the Google/Earthlink antennas could expose residents to RFR levels more than 50 times higher than levels associated with a significant increase in headaches, sleep disturbances and dizziness detected in a study conducted in Spain. According to Maifeld's calculations, wireless laptop users could expect exposure levels from a combination of antennas and laptop more than 350 times greater than the levels in the aforementioned Spanish study.
Havas' findings reveal a major lapse in public health protection offered by the FCC RFR exposure guidelines. Her report shows that health effects in the scientific literature appear at levels almost 10,000 times lower than those permitted by the FCC. Havas' opinions are shared by scientists worldwide who have signed the Benevento Resolution, which recommends "proposals for city-wide wireless access systems (e.g. WiFi or equivalent technologies) should require public review of potential EMF exposure." (See www.icems.eu.)
"Because the City and County of San Francisco is acting as a proprietor and party to a contract with Google/Earthlink and not in its regulatory capacity, it is not preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 from fully considering the health issues as it is when cell phone carriers seek to place antennas in the City," Loranger added.
Nancy Evans, a health science consultant with the Breast Cancer Fund, said, "We are calling upon the Board of Supervisors to apply the Precautionary Principle, which is a City ordinance, in addressing our concerns by conducting an environmental study before any decisions are made." Copies of the Havas and Maifeld reports, along with SNAFU's appeal, may be found at the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts (CWTI) website at www.energyfields.org.
For additional information, visit SNAFU?s website at www.antennafreeunion.org.
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=761
Autism: An Epidemic of Fairly Recent Origin
Weekend Edition
July 7 / 8, 2007
The Light at the End of the Tunnel is a Train
Autism: An Epidemic of Fairly Recent Origin
By ANNE DACHEL
On July 5th, an article in the Boston Globe by Carey Goldberg gave us some frightening information. Although the title, "With rise in autism, programs strained, "didn't seem too alarming, the facts presented should have gotten everyone's attention. We were told that as more and more children are being diagnosed with autism, we're desperately behind in providing services.
Goldberg wrote, "A decade ago, it took a few months to get a child into Melmark New England, a special school largely for children with autism. Now, the wait can be five years. Boston-area parents, worried their child may be autistic, routinely face delays as long as nine months to confirm the diagnosis."
These waiting lists indicate the explosion in the number of children with autism. "Statewide, the number of schoolchildren diagnosed with autism has nearly doubled over the last five years, from 4,080 to 7,521, according to soon-to-be-published data from the Department of Education."
A number of experts were cited. Dr. Margaret Bauman, director at LADDERS, a Wellesley autism clinic, noted that LADDERS has had to close their doors to new patients and she stated, "We're backed up well over a year here, and other clinics are struggling the same way,"
Rita Gardner, executive director of Melmark, in Andover was quoted saying, "Autism programs are faced with enormous needs and no one feels like we have enough programs to meet the up-and-coming numbers of children. I would argue that this is one of our biggest public health crises in this country."
Rafael Castro, an autism specialist at Children's Evaluation Center in Newton, told about families relocating in school districts that provide the necessary services.
Psychologist Karen Levine, clinical director of autism at Cambridge Health Alliance commented that there are "many families embroiled in battles with their school systems for more services."
Why is all this happening?
Goldberg explained, "Nationwide, federal health authorities say that about one in every 150 children now has some form of autism, a sharp increase over past estimates. The rates vary from state to state for unclear reasons; Massachusetts has now reached a total of 1 in every 130 schoolchildren."
Something affecting one in every 130 schoolchildren should have lots of people seriously concerned. Unfortunately, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention don't seem to have taken much notice of the skyrocketing number of children with autism everywhere. While Carey Goldberg noted that health officials can give us the current rate for autism, she didn't mention what they're doing about it.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we've always had all these disabled kids in need of services, their disorder just wasn't recognized as autism. The CDC describes all the autism as merely the result of "better diagnosing" and "greater awareness" on the part of doctors and no real cause for concern. It seems that one in every 130 children in Massachusetts has always been autistic. Goldberg touched on the topic when she said, 'Some debate lingers about whether the sharp rise in autism rates is real or simply reflects better detection."
Tell that to the countless parents waiting years for services. If these affected children have always been here, what did we do with them? It's a little hard to miss an autistic child, even a mildly affected one. We would have had to provide help for their special needs even if they didn't have the label "autistic."
The Boston Globe article should get people wondering about several huge issues. First of all, why are we always talking about children with autism? The CDC statistics of one in every 150 nationally refers to studies of eight years olds, not eighty year olds. If autism hasn't increased as officials never tire of telling us, then where are the older adults with autism? Why isn't there even one study that has been able to find the one in 150 thirty, fifty, and seventy year olds with autism who were misdiagnosed in the past, before all the "better diagnosing" we presently enjoy? Thousands and thousands of parents of autistic children desperate about their future would like to know. Where are they living and what are they doing? No one seems willing to look for them.
What's going to happen in the future?
One big question looms out there: How we will pay for all these children disabled with autism? Carey Goldberg talked a little about the financial aspects and noted that the costs are ever increasing. "The Legislature is recognizing the need: Starting in fiscal year 2006, it gave the state Division on Autism its own line item in the budget, and in the pending budget, allocates $3.2 million to the division, up from $3 million in the last fiscal year."
Actually, this is nothing compared to the future cost of autism. Research by Michael Ganz at Harvard makes a chilling prediction of the future cost to our society as more and more autistic kids become autistic adults. Ganz reported, "It can cost about $3.2 million to take care of an autistic person over his or her lifetime. Caring for all people with autism over their lifetimes costs an estimated $35 billion per year."
The Ganz findings are felt by others to be a gross underestimate of the eventual autism price tag. Research from Lifespire, an organization dedicated to helping individuals with developmental disabilities, puts the eventual estimated lifetime cost for one autistic individual at $10.125 million. This is based on an annual cost of $225,000 per person with a life expectancy of 66 years.
With numbers like these circulating out there, clearly the problems with meeting needs of children with autism will be dwarfed by the enormous burden of providing support and care for an overwhelming number of autistic adults in the next five to ten years as more and more of them age out of childhood.
For a long time I've wondered if anyone with a pocket calculator somewhere was adding things up. Every time I've tried to come up with figures, I'm simply shocked at what this generation of affected children is going to cost the American taxpayers.
Someone sent me a copy of a letter written last November by the Attorney General of Wisconsin, who at the time was Peggy Lautenschlager. The letter was addressed to U.S. Senator Herb Kohl from Wisconsin. It seems the Attorney General had been reading the newspapers and hearing about the statistics on autism.
Newspapers have occasionally covered the exploding numbers. Several months ago, the Green Bay Press Gazette reported, "Fourteen years ago, Wisconsin school districts identified 200 children in their ranks with autism. Today, there are at least 200 students in the Green Bay School District alone. In December 2005 (the most recent numbers available), DPI identified 5,085 students in the state with an autism spectrum disorder."
Those figures have got to be getting notice, especially if those numbers are multiplied by the estimates of lifetime care. In her letter to Senator Kohl, Lautenschlager addressed the autism epidemic as an epidemic. "Although some dispute the characterization, in my view it is appropriate to describe the dramatic rise of those diagnosed with autism as an epidemic of fairly recent origin. How else can one explain its prevalence among our children and comparative absence in our adult population?"
Calling autism "an epidemic of fairly recent origin" is a clear sign that Lautenschlager was not swayed by the "better diagnosing" claim of federal health officials. In addition, she urged Kohl to vote for the Combating Autism Act, then under consideration in the Senate.
The Wisconsin Attorney General further told Kohl, "Despite efforts being made in our schools, communities and through private sector and non-profit organizations dedicated to improving the lives of autistic children and their families, as a state and a nation we have failed to address comprehensively the most obvious question this epidemic presents: its cause."
Lautenschalger pointed to the need to support H.R. 5940, a bill that would require the NIH to conduct a comprehensive study regarding the relationship between vaccines or vaccine components and autism. She was concerned because "that bill also was referred to committee, and has seen no further action." She wrote, "Action is needed."
The controversy over vaccines, especially ones with mercury, was definitely a critical factor for Lautenschalger in addressing autism. She wrote, "As Attorney General of Wisconsin, I have sought approval from the Governor to gain the assistance of needed experts and outside counsel to explore legal means of forcing the federal government to undertake the type of testing needed to explain the cause or causes of autism. My request was denied." Evidently, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle didn't share the Attorney General's concern over the number of disabled children overwhelming state schools.
Although the U.S. Senate passed the Combating Autism Act by unanimous consent last December, the funding still hasn't been provided. H.R. 5940 was never acted on and nothing is known concerning how or if Senator Kohl personally responded to Lautenschlager's letter.
So where is all this leading?
When are elected officials going to start to honestly address autism as a crisis? With autism straining education budgets, how long can we keep pretending that something isn't seriously wrong with more and more of our children and no one can reasonably tell us why?
I can answer those questions. There won't be a real demand to find the cause of the explosion in autism until we start to go broke paying for it. Within the next five to ten years, we'll be seeing these children with autism become adults with autism, dependent on the taxpayers for their support and care. When one in every 150 eighteen year olds in the U.S., including one in every 94 boys, isn't going on to school, getting a job, or going into the military, but going on disability for life with autism, the reality of this disaster will be obvious to all.
Attorney General Lautenschlager ended her appeal to Senator Kohl by saying, "Nonetheless, I am hopeful that Members of Congress will appreciate the fiscal, societal and medical problems autism presents in our nation, and take immediate steps toward real solutions to these problems. These very special children, their families, and all who have a stake in our future are counting on you." It seems our legislators have yet to realize the full impact so many disabled children will have on this nation or to understand the extent of the suffering that countless families endure.
Bobbie Manning of A-CHAMP put it this way, "Congress and state legislatures always wait for a catastrophe to occur before they finally realize their ethical and moral responsibility to the public. Even with all news reports, they continue to act like these kids don't exist, but the tsunami is rapidly approaching. If schools systems are struggling to pay for the services for autistic children today, how will the states, and you the taxpayers, pay for all the adults with autism later? How many more children have to suffer before our Congress investigates and
reacts to this public health disaster? And what will be their excuse for not reacting sooner?"
The words of Laura Bono of the National Autism Association are a grim forecast for the future: "As those children reach adulthood, the U.S. is ill-equipped to care for them. Not only do we not have enough services for adults now, the light at the end of the tunnel is a train. Frankly, we don't know what we're going to do."
Anne McElroy Dachel lives in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. She can be reached at: amdachel@msn.com
July 7 / 8, 2007
The Light at the End of the Tunnel is a Train
Autism: An Epidemic of Fairly Recent Origin
By ANNE DACHEL
On July 5th, an article in the Boston Globe by Carey Goldberg gave us some frightening information. Although the title, "With rise in autism, programs strained, "didn't seem too alarming, the facts presented should have gotten everyone's attention. We were told that as more and more children are being diagnosed with autism, we're desperately behind in providing services.
Goldberg wrote, "A decade ago, it took a few months to get a child into Melmark New England, a special school largely for children with autism. Now, the wait can be five years. Boston-area parents, worried their child may be autistic, routinely face delays as long as nine months to confirm the diagnosis."
These waiting lists indicate the explosion in the number of children with autism. "Statewide, the number of schoolchildren diagnosed with autism has nearly doubled over the last five years, from 4,080 to 7,521, according to soon-to-be-published data from the Department of Education."
A number of experts were cited. Dr. Margaret Bauman, director at LADDERS, a Wellesley autism clinic, noted that LADDERS has had to close their doors to new patients and she stated, "We're backed up well over a year here, and other clinics are struggling the same way,"
Rita Gardner, executive director of Melmark, in Andover was quoted saying, "Autism programs are faced with enormous needs and no one feels like we have enough programs to meet the up-and-coming numbers of children. I would argue that this is one of our biggest public health crises in this country."
Rafael Castro, an autism specialist at Children's Evaluation Center in Newton, told about families relocating in school districts that provide the necessary services.
Psychologist Karen Levine, clinical director of autism at Cambridge Health Alliance commented that there are "many families embroiled in battles with their school systems for more services."
Why is all this happening?
Goldberg explained, "Nationwide, federal health authorities say that about one in every 150 children now has some form of autism, a sharp increase over past estimates. The rates vary from state to state for unclear reasons; Massachusetts has now reached a total of 1 in every 130 schoolchildren."
Something affecting one in every 130 schoolchildren should have lots of people seriously concerned. Unfortunately, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention don't seem to have taken much notice of the skyrocketing number of children with autism everywhere. While Carey Goldberg noted that health officials can give us the current rate for autism, she didn't mention what they're doing about it.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we've always had all these disabled kids in need of services, their disorder just wasn't recognized as autism. The CDC describes all the autism as merely the result of "better diagnosing" and "greater awareness" on the part of doctors and no real cause for concern. It seems that one in every 130 children in Massachusetts has always been autistic. Goldberg touched on the topic when she said, 'Some debate lingers about whether the sharp rise in autism rates is real or simply reflects better detection."
Tell that to the countless parents waiting years for services. If these affected children have always been here, what did we do with them? It's a little hard to miss an autistic child, even a mildly affected one. We would have had to provide help for their special needs even if they didn't have the label "autistic."
The Boston Globe article should get people wondering about several huge issues. First of all, why are we always talking about children with autism? The CDC statistics of one in every 150 nationally refers to studies of eight years olds, not eighty year olds. If autism hasn't increased as officials never tire of telling us, then where are the older adults with autism? Why isn't there even one study that has been able to find the one in 150 thirty, fifty, and seventy year olds with autism who were misdiagnosed in the past, before all the "better diagnosing" we presently enjoy? Thousands and thousands of parents of autistic children desperate about their future would like to know. Where are they living and what are they doing? No one seems willing to look for them.
What's going to happen in the future?
One big question looms out there: How we will pay for all these children disabled with autism? Carey Goldberg talked a little about the financial aspects and noted that the costs are ever increasing. "The Legislature is recognizing the need: Starting in fiscal year 2006, it gave the state Division on Autism its own line item in the budget, and in the pending budget, allocates $3.2 million to the division, up from $3 million in the last fiscal year."
Actually, this is nothing compared to the future cost of autism. Research by Michael Ganz at Harvard makes a chilling prediction of the future cost to our society as more and more autistic kids become autistic adults. Ganz reported, "It can cost about $3.2 million to take care of an autistic person over his or her lifetime. Caring for all people with autism over their lifetimes costs an estimated $35 billion per year."
The Ganz findings are felt by others to be a gross underestimate of the eventual autism price tag. Research from Lifespire, an organization dedicated to helping individuals with developmental disabilities, puts the eventual estimated lifetime cost for one autistic individual at $10.125 million. This is based on an annual cost of $225,000 per person with a life expectancy of 66 years.
With numbers like these circulating out there, clearly the problems with meeting needs of children with autism will be dwarfed by the enormous burden of providing support and care for an overwhelming number of autistic adults in the next five to ten years as more and more of them age out of childhood.
For a long time I've wondered if anyone with a pocket calculator somewhere was adding things up. Every time I've tried to come up with figures, I'm simply shocked at what this generation of affected children is going to cost the American taxpayers.
Someone sent me a copy of a letter written last November by the Attorney General of Wisconsin, who at the time was Peggy Lautenschlager. The letter was addressed to U.S. Senator Herb Kohl from Wisconsin. It seems the Attorney General had been reading the newspapers and hearing about the statistics on autism.
Newspapers have occasionally covered the exploding numbers. Several months ago, the Green Bay Press Gazette reported, "Fourteen years ago, Wisconsin school districts identified 200 children in their ranks with autism. Today, there are at least 200 students in the Green Bay School District alone. In December 2005 (the most recent numbers available), DPI identified 5,085 students in the state with an autism spectrum disorder."
Those figures have got to be getting notice, especially if those numbers are multiplied by the estimates of lifetime care. In her letter to Senator Kohl, Lautenschlager addressed the autism epidemic as an epidemic. "Although some dispute the characterization, in my view it is appropriate to describe the dramatic rise of those diagnosed with autism as an epidemic of fairly recent origin. How else can one explain its prevalence among our children and comparative absence in our adult population?"
Calling autism "an epidemic of fairly recent origin" is a clear sign that Lautenschlager was not swayed by the "better diagnosing" claim of federal health officials. In addition, she urged Kohl to vote for the Combating Autism Act, then under consideration in the Senate.
The Wisconsin Attorney General further told Kohl, "Despite efforts being made in our schools, communities and through private sector and non-profit organizations dedicated to improving the lives of autistic children and their families, as a state and a nation we have failed to address comprehensively the most obvious question this epidemic presents: its cause."
Lautenschalger pointed to the need to support H.R. 5940, a bill that would require the NIH to conduct a comprehensive study regarding the relationship between vaccines or vaccine components and autism. She was concerned because "that bill also was referred to committee, and has seen no further action." She wrote, "Action is needed."
The controversy over vaccines, especially ones with mercury, was definitely a critical factor for Lautenschalger in addressing autism. She wrote, "As Attorney General of Wisconsin, I have sought approval from the Governor to gain the assistance of needed experts and outside counsel to explore legal means of forcing the federal government to undertake the type of testing needed to explain the cause or causes of autism. My request was denied." Evidently, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle didn't share the Attorney General's concern over the number of disabled children overwhelming state schools.
Although the U.S. Senate passed the Combating Autism Act by unanimous consent last December, the funding still hasn't been provided. H.R. 5940 was never acted on and nothing is known concerning how or if Senator Kohl personally responded to Lautenschlager's letter.
So where is all this leading?
When are elected officials going to start to honestly address autism as a crisis? With autism straining education budgets, how long can we keep pretending that something isn't seriously wrong with more and more of our children and no one can reasonably tell us why?
I can answer those questions. There won't be a real demand to find the cause of the explosion in autism until we start to go broke paying for it. Within the next five to ten years, we'll be seeing these children with autism become adults with autism, dependent on the taxpayers for their support and care. When one in every 150 eighteen year olds in the U.S., including one in every 94 boys, isn't going on to school, getting a job, or going into the military, but going on disability for life with autism, the reality of this disaster will be obvious to all.
Attorney General Lautenschlager ended her appeal to Senator Kohl by saying, "Nonetheless, I am hopeful that Members of Congress will appreciate the fiscal, societal and medical problems autism presents in our nation, and take immediate steps toward real solutions to these problems. These very special children, their families, and all who have a stake in our future are counting on you." It seems our legislators have yet to realize the full impact so many disabled children will have on this nation or to understand the extent of the suffering that countless families endure.
Bobbie Manning of A-CHAMP put it this way, "Congress and state legislatures always wait for a catastrophe to occur before they finally realize their ethical and moral responsibility to the public. Even with all news reports, they continue to act like these kids don't exist, but the tsunami is rapidly approaching. If schools systems are struggling to pay for the services for autistic children today, how will the states, and you the taxpayers, pay for all the adults with autism later? How many more children have to suffer before our Congress investigates and
reacts to this public health disaster? And what will be their excuse for not reacting sooner?"
The words of Laura Bono of the National Autism Association are a grim forecast for the future: "As those children reach adulthood, the U.S. is ill-equipped to care for them. Not only do we not have enough services for adults now, the light at the end of the tunnel is a train. Frankly, we don't know what we're going to do."
Anne McElroy Dachel lives in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. She can be reached at: amdachel@msn.com
Adult and childhood leukemia near a high-power radio station in Rome, Italy.
In the name of Religion (and Money), give our children Leukemia!
Am J Epidemiol. 2002 Jun 15;155(12):1096-103. Links
Adult and childhood leukemia near a high-power radio station in Rome, Italy.
Michelozzi P,
Capon A,
Kirchmayer U,
Forastiere F,
Biggeri A,
Barca A,
Perucci CA.
Department of Epidemiology, Local Health Authority RME, Rome, Italy. salute@asplazio.it
Some recent epidemiologic studies suggest an association between lymphatic and hematopoietic cancers and residential exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz) generated by radio and television transmitters. Vatican Radio is a very powerful station located in a northern suburb of Rome, Italy. In the 10-km area around the station, with 49,656 residents (in 1991), leukemia mortality among adults (aged >14 years; 40 cases) in 1987-1998 and childhood leukemia incidence (eight cases) in 1987-1999 were evaluated. The risk of childhood leukemia was higher than expected for the distance up to 6 km from the radio station (standardized incidence rate = 2.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.0, 4.1), and there was a significant decline in risk with increasing distance both for male mortality (p = 0.03) and for childhood leukemia (p = 0.036). The study has limitations because of the small number of cases and the lack of exposure data. Although the study adds evidence of an excess of leukemia in a population living near high-power radio transmitters, no causal implication can be drawn. There is still insufficient scientific knowledge, and new epidemiologic studies are needed to clarify a possible leukemogenic effect of residential exposure to radio frequency radiation.
Am J Epidemiol. 2002 Jun 15;155(12):1096-103. Links
Adult and childhood leukemia near a high-power radio station in Rome, Italy.
Michelozzi P,
Capon A,
Kirchmayer U,
Forastiere F,
Biggeri A,
Barca A,
Perucci CA.
Department of Epidemiology, Local Health Authority RME, Rome, Italy. salute@asplazio.it
Some recent epidemiologic studies suggest an association between lymphatic and hematopoietic cancers and residential exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz) generated by radio and television transmitters. Vatican Radio is a very powerful station located in a northern suburb of Rome, Italy. In the 10-km area around the station, with 49,656 residents (in 1991), leukemia mortality among adults (aged >14 years; 40 cases) in 1987-1998 and childhood leukemia incidence (eight cases) in 1987-1999 were evaluated. The risk of childhood leukemia was higher than expected for the distance up to 6 km from the radio station (standardized incidence rate = 2.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.0, 4.1), and there was a significant decline in risk with increasing distance both for male mortality (p = 0.03) and for childhood leukemia (p = 0.036). The study has limitations because of the small number of cases and the lack of exposure data. Although the study adds evidence of an excess of leukemia in a population living near high-power radio transmitters, no causal implication can be drawn. There is still insufficient scientific knowledge, and new epidemiologic studies are needed to clarify a possible leukemogenic effect of residential exposure to radio frequency radiation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)