Monday, May 06, 2013

Microwave Factor Youtube Videos


Posted by at No comments:

Under-50s with breast cancer at record high


Under-50s with breast cancer at record high

A record number of women under 50 are being diagnosed with breast cancer as a result of heavier drinking and later motherhood.






 12:01AM BST 03 May 2013
Doctors identified 10,068 new cases of breast cancer among under-50s in Britain in 2010, the first time the total has hit five figures, a report shows.
It represents an 11 per cent rise since 1995, when the number of diagnoses in the same age group was 7,712, or an increase from 38 to 42 cases in every 100,000 women.
The rise in younger patients developing breast cancer contributed to an overall increase in diagnosis rates among women of all ages from 37,107 cases in 1995 to a new high of 49,564 in 2010, figures released by Cancer Research UK show.
Higher alcohol consumption, a growing tendency to have fewer children, having them later in life, and use of the contraceptive pill were last night linked to the increase in cases among younger women.
Binge drinkers are most at risk, but every daily drink raises the risk of the condition even for women who are careful to stay within the Government’s recommended limits, experts warned.
Prof Mark Bellis, director of the Centre for Public Health at Liverpool John Moores University, said: “The big issue is that a lot of people think there is a safe limit, particularly with cancer, and there isn’t.
“There is a substantive amount of breast cancer associated with what is often called 'sensible drinking’, when people do not even think they are taking a risk … the risk starts pretty well from drinking any amount.
“Given what we know about the relationships between alcohol and cancers, an increase in breast cancers linked to increased alcohol consumption is inevitable.”
The number of women drinking more than 14 units of alcohol, or seven glasses of wine, per week increased from 15 per cent in 1998 to 18 per cent in 2009, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Having fewer children and starting motherhood later in life can also raise the risk of breast cancer because of the effect on hormone levels.
Even taking the contraceptive pill can temporarily add to the chance of developing the condition.
Jessica Harris, the senior health information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: “Because breast cancer is one [cancer] that tends to be related to your hormone levels it can have quite a strong impact. The more children women have and the earlier in age they have them, the lower the risk. So when there is a trend in society for women to have fewer children and have them later, that would impact on the risk of [breast] cancer.
“The Pill has a small effect: it does increase the risk of breast cancer, but only while women are taking it. At the age at which women tend to take the Pill the risk of breast cancer is low, so that’s why it has only a small effect.”
Official figures published last year show that the number of women giving birth after the age of 40 rose by 16 per cent between 2007 and 2012, and the average British family now has 1.7 children compared with two in 1971.
While postmenopausal women are most at risk of breast cancer, the new figures show that one in five cases of the disease now occurs in women under the age of 50.
The NHS routinely offers breast screening for over-50s, but the programme has not been extended nationally to the 40 to 50 age group because of concerns about the reliability of the results.
Cases of breast cancer in the under-50s have increased steadily in recent years, numbering 9,312 in 2008 and 9,528 in 2009 before reaching 10,068 in 2010.
Cancer Research UK said the figures alone could not prove what is causing the higher rate of cases among younger women, but that increasing alcohol intake is likely to play an important part.
Despite the increase in cases, death rates from the disease among under-50s fell from nine deaths per 100,000 women in 1995 to five per 100,000 in 2010 due to research, increased awareness and improved care.
The charity said that women of all ages should monitor alterations in size, shape or feel of their breasts and report any changes to their doctor, even if they have been screened for the condition.
Chris Askew, chief executive of the Breakthrough Breast Cancer charity, added: “These figures show that breast cancer still affects more and more families every year in the UK and the need for research into the disease remains vital.
“Although breast cancer is more common in older women, it’s worrying to see an increase in the number of younger women diagnosed with the disease. We must invest in vital research for new treatments and disease prevention.”
A Department of Health spokesman said: “It is important that the signs of breast cancer are spotted early so women can start treatment and improve their chances of survival. That is why we encourage women of all ages to be breast aware, know what is normal for them, and report any changes to their GP as soon as possible.”

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10033436/Under-50s-with-breast-cancer-at-record-high.html
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, May 05, 2013

Action Alert - Urgent: Add Your Name to This Important Letter



ACTION ALERT: SF BOS Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 7, 2013 - 2:00 PM City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102-4689


From: Antoinette Stein <tweil@igc.org>
Dear colleagues,

Apologies for cross posting if you already received this from me or Ellie Marks, Doug Loranger, Libby Kelley et al.

NEED YOUR HELP- Please sign on to the attached Letter—Please REPLY to me with what Name (and org, etc. if you want) you want me to paste into the letter

1.      Please Sign on to the letter below.
If you have not yet signed on please consider it as it will really help all of our EMF issues.  --If you see errors in the text of the letter below or misspellings in any signatures please let me know so they can be fixed. Please understand that this is not easy and I am trying my best.  Your help with this is GREATLY APPRECIATED !! btw. You do not have to live in SF or in the US to sign on.

 2.      Please come to the SF Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting  
Tell the BOS to VOTE NO on Item 8/Continue Item 8!
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 - 2:00 PM
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Legislative Chamber, Room 250
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689

—CTIA has hijacked the process! – We need to ASK for a CONTINUANCE AT A MINIMUM!

SF Rules Committee met in closed session on April 18th and has recommended killing SF’S  2011 RIGHT TO KNOW DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS through a stipulated SETTLMENT Agreement.

Antoinette “Toni” Stein PhD
892 Arlington Ave
Berkeley, CA 94707
650-823-7662
tweil@igc.org

Sign on letter to follow and Table 1 attached:
-----------------------------------------------------------
May 4, 2013
Dear Honorable San Francisco Board of Supervisors:

Norman Yee
John Avalos
Malia Cohen
London Breed
Eric Mar
David Chiu
David Campos
Katy Tang
Jane Kim
Mark Farrell
Scott Wiener

We the undersigned support the May 3, 2013 “Expert Physician and Scientist Letter on Cell Phone Safety[1]”.  We agree that you should further evaluate all of the significant new scientific information tabulated in Table 1 below before you decide on settling the CTIA-The Wireless Association® law suit. 

Please do not rush into any YES VOTE  on Settlement of Lawsuit with  CTIA – The Wireless Association that is  Item # 8130315 on the May 7th Board of Supervisor Meeting Agenda without first carefully reviewing the new scientific information including  the newly published scientific information in the 480 page WHO IARC Monograph published on April 24th and the other new information listed in Table 1.

 Because a substantial amount of new scientific information has been released after the Rules Committee deliberated and voted, we respectfully ask you to reject the April 18th Board of Supervisor’s Rules Committee recommendation to settle with CTIA-The Wireless Association® lawsuit[2] because it was made without any consideration of the new and significant scientific information listed in Table 1.  And we respectfully ask you to CONTINUE this item due to these special circumstances and permit needed time for both the City and County of San Francisco, the public, and the CTIA-The Wireless Association®  to review the substantial new scientific information relevant to this matter that the Rules Committee recommendation did not consider in their closed door deliberations (because it was not published when they met).

We also encourage the City and County of San Francisco to try to  meet and confer with the CTIA-The Wireless Association® to discuss these new significant scientific information and discuss if in fact the narrowly asserted CELL PHONE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS that are in the SF Environment Code do not in fact act to support the city’s governmental interests of Protecting Children’s Health in light of the new substantial scientific information in the official WHO IARC Monograph under its classification that cell phone radiation is officially  a Group 2B carcinogen and the other new scientific reports including  that brain tumor treatment costs in the US exceed $1 Million per victim.
     
We encourage you not to take any rash or arbitrary and capricious actions that are not in accordance with the full constitutional GOVERNMENTAL rights and powers afforded under the law especially under the Central Hudson test[3].  Do not decide without first carefully reviewing and considering in depth the significant new scientific information tabulated in Table 1 including the 480 page World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monograph that classifies cellular telephone and other Electromagnetic Radiation (RF EMF) as a Group 2B carcinogen.    
Under the City’s Fair Public Process Rules, the public has a right to know about all of the important new and relevant technical information before you vote on this matter consistent with the responsibilities of this great city to protect public health and safety.   Accordingly, we respectfully ask you to:

1. Provide the public with posted information on this key new science on the City’s websites linking to the 480 page WHO IARC Monograph on RF EMF radiation and the other new significant scientific information listed in Table 1 below and other new studies.

2. Reopen the “Public Comment Period” and allow the public to speak about this new information as it pertains to the passed ordinance.
  
As articulated in the “Expert Physician and Scientist Letter on Cell Phone Safety” we agree that the new science brought forth in Table 1 introduces materially changed facts and circumstances that need to be carefully considered before finalizing the Cities actions on the CTIA-The Wireless Association® lawsuit  because the new information brings new information on health hazards and never before peer reviewed cost estimates on health impacts that the City may incur.   In addition, the Federal Communications Commission will be formally issuing a new inquiry into its approach to cell phones reflecting new technical information as well.

We share the goal of saving lives in San Francisco, and we urge that the Board continue to ensure the public right to know about cell phone safety and assist in promoting broad public understanding of basic precautions that can be taken to reduce radiation exposure from cell phones.  People have a right to know about ways to use phones more safely that they otherwise may be unaware of including the best practices currently embedded within phones or printed in small type in pamphlets they receive after purchasing these devices.  We applaud your efforts to promote this basic right.

We urge you NOT to authorize any permanent injunction against enforcement of the Cell Phone Right-to-Know Law that was unanimously passed by the SF Board of Supervisors before reviewing the relevant new information that was released after the Rules Committee meeting including the WHO IARC Monograph and the other the other key new scientific information (See Table 1). 

We the public request a minimum of 60 days to review and comment on the new science that the city and its people have not yet had a chance to review and consider.  Thank you for your efforts to protect our health and safety.   
Sincerely,
  

SIGNATURE LIST (chronological order)

Health Professionals, Scientists, Public Officials and Community based Organizations

Ellen Marks, California Brain Tumor Association
Antoinette “Toni”, Stein, PhD: Co-moderator of Collaborative on Health Working Group on Electromagnetic Fields (CHE-EMF)
Arthur Firstenburg, President Cellular Phone Task Force
Tony La France, MD
Max Anderson, Berkeley City Council
David Shapiro, Attorney, Calabasas City Council
Cindy Sage, MA, Sage Associates Co-editor BioIniative Report 2012
Nancy Evans, Health Science Consultant, SF
Mona Nilsson, Fonderu, Vice Chairman, Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation
Ms. Kiku Iwata, Co-founder Burbank Action (Against Cell Towers in Our Neighborhoods)
Kevin Kunze, Director, Mobilize
Katie Hickox, Member SF Women’s Forum, SF for Democracy
Dana Nachman, CTF Films
B. Blake Levitt, Former New York Times writer, author A Conusmer;s Guide to the Issues and how to Protect Ourselves
Sam Schwartz, MD
Rep. Vanessa Lowery Brown (D-190, PA General Assembly and Chairwoman of the PA legislative  Black Caucus
Rep. Andrea Boland (D) Maine
Leland Mew, MD
Katharina Gustavs, Certified EOH Building Biology Consultant
George Spathis, Attorney at Law,
Ariel Barfield, HEAL of Southern Arizona
Katharina Gustavs, Cert. EOH  Building Biology Environmental Consultant IBN
Ann McCampbell, MD, Environmental Health Consultant
Jonathan Franklin, MD
Cynthia Franklin, Consumers for Safe Cell Phones
Sandi Maurer, Director EMF Safety
Rae Amey, President, Rae Amey Enterprises
Mary Beth Brangan and James Heddle, Co-Directors Ecological Options Network, EON
Daphne Jasperes, widow of Steven, died age 48 cell phone related brain tumor
Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Health Trust
Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg, MES, PhD, University of Toronto
Lew Levenson, Chair, Rim Country Environmental Health Coalition, Payson, AZ
Lisa Tully, PhD
Sharon L. Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
Commissioner Phoebe Sorgen, Berkeley, CA

SIGNATURE LIST: BRAIN TUMOR and EMI VICTIMS

 Alan Marks, victim
Zachary Marks, son of victim
Jordan Marks, son of victim
Amanda Marks, daughter of victim
Mindy Brown, widow of Coach Dan Brown, Defensive Coordinator Fresno State football, father of 6, deceased at age 50 from cell phone related brain tumor
Valerie Marks
Keith Marks
Brandon Marks
Jenna Marks
Abigail Marks, widow of Milton Marks
Cristin Prischman, widow of Paul- deceased age 42 cell phone related brain tumor
Monique Solomon, widow of Andrew Solomon, age 43, cell phone related brain tumor
Stuart Cobb, victim
Jenna Weiss, daughter of brain tumor survivor
Alisha Buller Kidd
Sean Kidd, victim
Laura Ingram, Sf resident- long term cell phone user, now environmentally ill
Jeri Brooks, widow of victim
John Lawler, victim, age 40
Ashley Lawler, victim
Jimmy Gonzalez, attorney, victim, age 41
Anthony Patch, victim, age 40

SIGNATURE LIST: Concerned People

Angela Lucas
David Lucas
Donna La France,
Kevin Mottus
Faye Harrison
Linda Specht
Korissa Brown
Tara Markey
Larry Brown
Eric Brown
Travis Brown
Susan Golovan
Bruce Golovan
Zack Golovan
Greg Golovan
Eva Hoffman
Kevin Hoffman
Sharon Schwartz
Sybelle Gabriel
Marla Spector
Sharon Schwartz
Nancy Hubert
Jordan Brown
James Johnson
Wendy A. Ferguson, Fairfax
Kristen Cobb
Margaret Mew
Evan Mew
Liddy Clark
Roberta Lewis
Kelly Fiorella
Lino Fiorella
Nicholas Fiorella
Lisa Spathis
Debra Peilet
Andrew Peilet
Gail Freed
Mark Freed
Joni Gimbel
Lee Gimbel
Sandra Chiafiori,
Stephenie Ratke
Adam Ratke
Kesler Ratke
Max Ratke
Jill Botti
Pamela Smith,
Joseph spathis
Jenna Spathis
Julia Spathis
Hallie Peilet
Carly Peilet
Debby Marks
Glenn Marks
Cindy Licht
Glenn Licht
Dani Licht
Brit Licht
Barb Payne
Karen Johnson
Deborah McCutcheon
Marne Glaser
Barbara Weightman
Jake McCombs
Samantha McCombs
Sarah Reilly
Jerry Reilly
Elizabeth Miles
Keith Miles
Al Leuthner
Karen Leuthner Johnson
MIke Pellegatti, Phoenix, AZ
Marianne Shannon, Pantagonia, AZ
Gary Widman, Tiburon, CA
David and Dawn Roberts, Gold Canyon, AZ 85118
Susan Riley-concerned citizen, retired RN, Tucson, AZ
Greg Roberson
Monnie Ramsell, 50 Bronco Drive, Sedona AZ 86336
Susan Benson, Tucson, AZ 85704
Government Agencies:
None!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to send your own letter to the BOS directly (I recommend it in addition to sign on). Here are their emails and their STAFF emails:  
Eric.L.Mar@sfgov.org; Mark.Farrell@sfgov.org ; David.Chiu@sfgov.org ; Katy.Tang@sfgov.org ;London.Breed@sfgov.org ; Jane.Kim@sfgov.org ; Norman.Yee@sfgov.org ; Scott.Wiener@sfgov.org ;David.Campos@sfgov.org ; Malia.Cohen@sfgov.org ; John.Avalos@sfgov.org ; mayoredwinlee@sfgov.org
'Nickolas.Pagoulatos@sfgov.org'; 'Victor.Lim@sfgov.org'; 'Peter.Lauterborn@sfgov.org'; 'Catherine.Rauschuber@sfgov.org'; 'Judson.True@sfgov.org'; 'Amy.Chan@sfgov.org'; 'Catherine.Stefani@sfgov.org'; 'Margaux.Kelly@sfgov.org'; 'Jess.Montejano@sfgov.org'; 'Ashley.Summers@sfgov.org'; 'Dyanna.Quizon@sfgov.org'; 'Carol.Mo@sfgov.org'; 'Vallie.Brown@sfgov.org'; 'Ahmad.Elnajjar@sfgov.org'; 'Conor.Johnston@sfgov.org'; 'Sunny.Angulo@sfgov.org'; 'Ivy.Lee@sfgov.org'; 'Danny.Yadegar@sfgov.org'; 'Esther.E.Lee@sfgov.org'; 'Matthias.Mormino@sfgov.org'; 'Olivia.Scanlon@sfgov.org'; 'Adam.Taylor@sfgov.org'; 'Andres.Power@sfgov.org'; 'Jeff.Cretan@sfgov.org'; 'Hillary.Ronen@sfgov.org'; 'Joseph.Smooke@sfgov.org'; 'Nate.Allbee@sfgov.org'; 'Stephany.Ashley@sfgov.org'; 'Megan.Hamilton@sfgov.org'; 'Andrea.Bruss@sfgov.org'; 'Michael.P.Lee@sfgov.org'; 'Raquel.Redondiez@sfgov.org'; 'Frances.Hsieh@sfgov.org'; 'AvalosStaff@sfgov.org';
Posted by at No comments:

The Day That Albert Einstein Feared Has Arrived!


Posted by at No comments:

Letter from Eileen O`Connor, Director of the UK`s Radiation Research Trust to the WHO


Susan FosterExcellent letter from Eileen O'Connor, Dir of the UK's Radiation Research Trust, to the World Health Organization regarding their misrepresentation on the WHO website of the 2B "possible human" carcinogen status of RF radiation from cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, smart meters . . . and a disturbing misrepresentation of EHS/ES:

Dear Drs. Baan, Straif, and Gaudin,

The UK Radiation Research Trust formally gives notice objecting to the World Health Organisations misrepresentation of the IARC 2B classification of RF/EMF.

In addition, members of the Radiation Research Trust are shocked to hear that the WHO website is ridiculing people who suffer with EHS by suggesting that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects. What sort of society are we living in when those in positions of power are ridiculing the most vulnerable in society?

It is not just humans that are suffering from EMFs. Many animal studies have also shown biological effects. The effects of EMR are being felt by wildlife and the environment as a whole, birds, bees, worms, trees are all being affected. Could the animal kingdom and the environment also suffer from psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects?

The grounds of the objection on behalf of the UK Radiation Research Trust are:

There is a very significant body of research published reinforcing the hypothesis that RF/EMF emissions are detrimental to health demonstrating that radiation exposures set within the current thermal ICNIRP guidelines can increase the probability of developing diseases following long term exposures, mainly cancer, tumours, and genetic damage. These are referred to as the stochastic effects of radiation, and are not included in the term radiation sickness. Stochastic effects often show up years after exposure. As the dose to an individual increases, the probability that cancer or a genetic effect will occur also increases.

Many doctors and scientists worldwide believe there is a very real and significant risk to the general health of the public, wildlife and the environment.

It is an infringement of human rights and possibly be in contravention of the Nuremberg treaty to subject unsuspecting members of the public to RF/EMF emissions when they have not been shown to be safe, and indeed much research and observation suggest that there are significant risks, and when the public have clearly not given permission or approval or been given proper advice or words of caution to allow them to make informed decisions.

With all this in mind I respectfully request that the issues contained in this letter are taken on board and acted upon with regards to the WHO diluting the message given from the WHO website to the public.

I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,

Eileen O'Connor
Director
EM Radiation Research Trust

http://www.radiationresearch.org/
Posted by at 2 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)