Friday, May 30, 2014

Do cellphones cause radiation?

Do cellphones cause radiation?

Kim Komando, Special for USA TODAY7:03 a.m. EDT May 30, 2014

(Photo: Thinkstock)

I imagine you're like me. You have least considered the idea that the phone you hold flat up against your ear day after day might have detrimental health effects. But then you shirk the concept and attribute it to a brief case of paranoia. After all, if cellphones did cause cancer, wouldn't people be openly talking about it?
Here's where the confusion starts.
Some scientific studies show a possible link while others show no link. Meanwhile, there are plenty of people taking to the Internet with horror stories of tumors appearing where they regularly keep their phones next to their body.
The reason this is back on my mind is a recent study out of France published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine. It shows a possible link between heavy cellphone use and certain types of brain cancer.
The study defines "heavy cellphone use" as 15 hours or more every month for more than five years. At that level, the risk of glioma and meningioma tumors increased two to three times.
Oddly, unlike any previous study, this one showed the tumors appearing on the opposite side of the head from where participants typically held the phone.
Still, as always, this study isn't conclusive, and it found no cancer risk with moderate and light cellphone use. So, where does that leave us?
For myself and my family, I assume the worst - that prolonged exposure does increase cancer risk - and take steps to stay safe. The preventative measures aren't expensive or inconvenient, so why not?
I'll tell you those steps in a moment. Before that, it's a good idea to know why this issue is so hard to settle.
It comes down to radiation. For this general discussion, there are two main types of radiation: ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation.
Ionizing radiation includes gamma rays, X-rays and some ultraviolet rays. These are known to damage your DNA, increasing the risk of cancer. When you get sunburned, that's thanks to ionizing ultraviolet radiation.
Non-ionizing radiation includes visible light and radio waves. Radio waves include microwaves, which is what cellphones and wireless routers use. Non-ionizing radiation doesn't damage your DNA or cells. That's a good thing, too, given how much exposure we have to things like visible light.
In extreme quantities, non-ionizing radiation can burn you - a high-intensity laser and a microwave oven are good examples. However, you don't get the same kind of damage as sunburn.
Back to the topic, cellphones don't even put out enough radiation to burn you. The FCC regulates cellphone radiation and keeps it well below dangerous levels. A measurement of what your phone puts out is the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, figure in your phone's manual.
So, on paper, cellphones should have no effect on humans. Still, there is an effect.
One study, for example, shows that when held near the skin, a cellphone signal causes glucose in the area to metabolize faster after 50 minutes. Scientists are still trying to sort out what long-term consequences this could have.
There's also the question of whether long term exposure might accumulate into negative side effects. And many critics point out that the government bases its safety figures on adults, not children who might be more at risk.
Until these questions are answered, the International Agency for Cancer Research lists cellphone radiation as a "Possibly carcinogenic to humans." However, for perspective, it gives the same rating to coffee and talc-based powders.
With so many things that can contribute to cancer - genetics, food additives, gasoline fumes, the sun, most chemicals and much more - trying to figure out what part cellphone radiation plays is very tricky.
But, as I said earlier, why take the risk? Here are some things I do to minimize exposure to cellphone radiation for myself and my family.
When you're making calls, switch your phone over to speaker mode. This keeps it away from your head and major organs. Manufacturers recommend keeping the phone 0.8 inches or farther away from your skin while on a call. Even that little distance will seriously drop the radiation your body might absorb.
During phone calls, your phone is outputting the strongest signal. It also uses a stronger signal when you're moving or in a low-signal area. So, make calls when you're stationary or have a good connection.
Send texts instead of making phone calls. While you're texting, the cellular signal is much weaker.
Men: Keep the phone out of your pockets. Women: Don't put the phone in your bra. If you have to keep it close to you, switch to airplane mode, which disables the cellular and Wi-Fi signals.
For frequent talking, consider a Bluetooth headset. Yes, it also puts out radiation, but at a thousandth of the amount of a cellphone. Just remember to take it out of your ear between calls.
A wired headset is an option as well. I've seen articles online saying that a headset wire can act as an antenna and actually increase your radiation exposure. However, that information usually appears in ads for radiation-proof headsets, and I haven't seen any actual scientific research to back it up.
On the Kim Komando Show, the nation's largest weekend radio talk show, Kim takes calls and dispenses advice on today's digital lifestyle, from smartphones and tablets to online privacy and data hacks. For her daily tips, newsletters and more, visitwww.komando.com. E-mail her at techcomments@usatoday.com.

U.S. Military Aims for Brain Implants to Treat Wounded Soldiers

U.S. Military Aims for Brain Implants to Treat Wounded Soldiers

By Jeremy Hsu
Posted 

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

WiFi in U.S. schools estimated cost: $3.2 billion to meet Obama’s goal


WiFi in U.S. schools estimated cost: $3.2 billion to meet Obama’s goal


President Barack Obama speaks about Afghanistan, Tuesday, May 27, 2014, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. The president will seek to keep 9,800 US troops in Afghanistan after the war formally ends later this year and then will withdraw most of those forces by the end of 2016.(AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
(AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
(Correction: Earlier version had incorrect total)
President Obama’s vision of ensuring that 99 percent of American K-12 schools have broadband and WIFI by 2018 is going to be mighty expensive.
The Federal Communications Commission received an estimate Wednesday of how much money it will take: $800 million a year for four years for a total $3.2 billion.  The estimate came from  the Consortium for School Networking and the EducationSuperHighway, which together did an analysis of the additional E-rate funds necessary to build the networks to achieve Obama’s goal,first announced in 2013.  
CoSN is a professional association for school system technology leaders; EducationSuperHighway is a nonprofit organization backed by the foundations of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg with the mission of  providing all K-12 public schools with high-capacity Internet access so they can take advantage of the promise of digital learning.
In June 2013, Obama announced his ConnectED vision and said the FCC should pay for the initiative with its E-Rate program, which is funded through a surcharge on telephone bills.
The new cost analysis follows a 2013 survey by CoSN that revealed a huge gap with U.S. district education networks. Keith Krueger, the chief executive of CoSN, was quoted in a statement as saying:
Our survey revealed an unfortunate, but very real picture, with 57 percent of districts reporting their wireless networks incapable of handling a 1:1 deployment today and 40 percent of classrooms with no Wi-Fi at all. However, until now the education community did not have the data to measure the investment required to solve this problem. Now we do. The cost model designed by EducationSuperHighway and CoSN shows what it will take to get all our schools up to speed experiencing an enriched learning environment within the President’s proposed timeframe.
The new cost analysis says in part:
[B]y combining our estimates of the equipment schools need for robust LAN, Wi-Fi, and core WAN networks, the cost of that equipment, and the current readiness of school networks, the LAN / Wi-Fi ConnectED Cost Model estimates the baseline funding that will be required to achieve the ConnectED goal of ubiquitous wireless networks supporting 1:1 digital learning. Specifically, the model projects that schools will require approximately $2.9 billion of E-rate subsidies over the next four years to upgrade their LAN, WAN, and Wi-Fi networks. Assuming that libraries add an additional 10% to the upgrade cost, we arrive at a total E-rate subsidy requirement of approximately $3.2 billion or $800 million per year for the next four years.
You can read the full analysis here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/05/28/wifi-in-u-s-schools-estimated-cost-4-billion-to-meet-obamas-goal/ 

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

The Disappearance of the Insects

The Disappearance of the Insects


Back in 2006, I wrote the following article after noticing a disappearance of insects in my environment, which was at the time, Kunming, China. <http://www.rense.com/general81/emfs.htm> (Several people were able to find a few insects in that city and hence tried to discount or diminish what I was saying, but still the fact remained.) 

However, after living in China, I lived in the intentional community of Auroville, India, which at the time would not allow any cell phone towers on its land and was also pretty much a white zone. Auroville had a very noticeable abundance of insects everywhere. So much so that they were crawling on the walls at night only to be eaten by the Geckos and the ants would be very quick to take away bread crumbs from a table at the cafe. 

While I was living in Auroville,  I went two-hours north to the city of Chennai (formally Madras) to have a video interview with a university in the United Arab Emirates. I had the local taxi company take me up there and spent quite a bit of time trying to find a hotel as they were either booked or quite expensive. I ended spending about $ US 30.00 for a dumpy room that had no fan and no screens on the windows. One thing I noticed was that in spite of not having any screens on the window and the windows being open all night, not one insect came in the room. I also noticed walking around the city that there were no ants to be found on the ground.

A few years later, when I was back in Japan, I took a trip to Cebu Island in the Philippines to attend a conference on language teaching. There was a garbage can across the street from my hotel. While there was garbage strewn around the garbage can , there were no insects there: no ants, no flies, no nothing. There were however, cell phone antennas plastered on the buildings throughout the city.

Recently, I decided to do an experiment here at my townhouse in Santa Cruz. I poured some honey on brick on my back patio. The honey sat there without one insect coming to consume it for a few days and finally melted and evaporated from the dry heat.

However, this past weekend at Harbin Hot Springs, I saw bees, I saw butterflies, I saw dragonflies, I saw ants, I saw flies, and I even saw a few mosquitoes.

I guess people are too busy consumed with their iPhones and Androids to notice -- to be mindful of -- what is happening in their immediate environments.

Art KAB

More on the disappearance of insects:










http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/12/17720341-ant-icipation-insects-know-when-earthquakes-are-coming?lite

-- 
EMR-Updates 
(
 
Sent from a Hard-Wired Computer)

Brought to you by 

EMF Refugee: 
The International Coalition for an Electromagnetic Safe Planet (IC-ESP)


"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." 
- George Orwell

"The Autonomic system is affected by microwaves of the centimeter wave length band. These waves affect circulation, respiration, temperature control, water balance, albumin and sugar concentration in the cerebro-spinal fluid, hydrogen ion concentration, EEG, GSR, sleep, conscious awareness, etc." 

Monday, May 26, 2014

Electrosensitive: Outliers in a Wireless World - Extended Previe

Electrosensitive: Outliers in a Wireless World - Extended Preview


"Electrosensitive: Outliers in a Wireless World"
This is an excerpt from a short film I've made about people who suffer from Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS).
This film was screened at The Peterborough International Film Festival in Canada in January 2014. Details here...reframefilmfestival.ca/films/2014/film/electrosensitive-outliers-in-a-wireless-world
A shorter version of this video and my photographs were shown on the Guardian website and the story and my photos were published in the Weekend Magazine on the 30th March 2013. See here... gu.com/p/3en9v/tw and here... gu.com/p/3emad/tw
You can view the portraits from the project on my website - thomasballphoto.com. You can also read more about the series in a article I was commissioned to write for Photoworks as part of the Brighton Digital Festival 2013 here...photoworks.org.uk/outliers-in-a-wireless-world
For details on future screenings and exhibitions keep a look out on my blog thomasballphoto.wordpress.com or follow me on twitter twitter.com/tballfoto or Facebook tinyurl.com/c5opn8m
This film is copyrighted and should not be reproduced or screened without prior permission.
Music by Peter Rudenko.
15 Etudes (Peter Rudenko) / CC BY 3.0

Sunday, May 25, 2014

About Smart Meters: About Smart Meters #10


About Smart Meters: About Smart Meters #10

On May 5, "tobacco scientist" Peter Valberg testified as an expert on radiofrequencies for National Grid at the Worcester Zoning Board of Appeals on behalf of an application to mount antennas on a water tower on Goddard Memorial Drive. Who is Peter Valberg? Should MA ratepayers be financing the use of product defense firms like Gradient and Exponent in the debate over smart meters? Does Valberg's testimony provide assurance to Worcester residents about the safety of the smart meter pilot program?

Do mobile phones cause brain tumours?

Do mobile phones cause brain tumours?

While the scientific community is still arguing over phone safety, one man tells Maxine Frith why he has banned his children from using mobiles

Neil Whitfield whith his wife Caroline and his sons Harry (2nd lt) and William
'My doctor said he was absolutely convinced it was my mobile-phone use’: Neil Whitfield with wife Caroline and sons William and Harry Photo: WARREN SMITH FOR THE TELEGRAPH


7:00AM BST 25 May 2014


When Neil Whitfield was diagnosed with a brain tumour at the age of 44, he left the consulting room in shock.
He had been struggling with debilitating headaches, short-term memory loss and fatigue for months, and faced a brutal choice between risky surgery or leaving the tumour where it was and coming to terms with the fact that it would kill him within five years.
But what also shocked him was his doctor’s theory about what had caused the tumour.
“He said he was absolutely convinced it was my mobile-phone use,” said Mr Whitfield, from Wigan, Lancashire. “He told me that mobile phones were going to be the smoking gun of the 21st century in terms of cancers. I hadn’t even thought about it before.”
At the time of his diagnosis in 2001, Mr Whitfield was working as a sales manager and had been a regular user of mobile phones since 1995. He never used one again.

After surgery, he was left deaf in one ear and suffered some facial paralysis, but has been given the all-clear. His employers, however, did not see eye to eye with his decision not to use a mobile. “I basically got 'managed out’,” he says. “When I went back to work and explained that the tumour had been near my ear, they said, 'Well, can’t you just put the phone to your other ear?’ It was ludicrous.
“I now run my own training agency without a mobile – it can be done, but we have all become so reliant on mobiles that we think we can’t survive without them.”
His sons, aged 13 and nine, do not own mobiles and are not too bothered about their father’s ban. “If people ask, they just explain what happened to me,” says Mr Whitfield. “So many people don’t know about the risks. If mobile phones were a food, they would have been taken off the shelves by now.
“I don’t know any parent who would hand their child drugs and say, off you go, yet virtually every kid has a mobile. I find it terrifying.”
But just what the risks are for children is still open to fierce debate. Last week, the Department of Health announced that it had commissioned the world’s largest study of the effects of mobile-phone use. The two-year Study of Cognition, Adolescents and Mobile Phones (Scamp) will look at 2,500 children aged 11 and 12. They will be asked about phone use and tested on functions such as memory and attention to see whether the use of mobiles has any impact. It has been suggested that children and teenagers could be more vulnerable to radio-frequency exposure because their nervous systems are still developing.
Around 70 per cent of 11- and 12-year-olds in the UK now own a phone, rising to 90 per cent of children over 14. One recent phone app even encourages parents to download nursery rhymes and place the device on a child’s pillow so they can be soothed to sleep with lullabies. And although the 2005 Stewart report on phone technology recommended that children under 16 should only use mobiles for essential calls, the reality is that most teenagers spend hours on them a week.
So what are the risks? Experts may not agree on whether phones cause cancer, but there is a consensus that excessive use is leading to a rise in other related issues, such as repetitive strain injury (known as “texting thumb” by some doctors) and attention problems in some children.
And although most studies have not found any firm link between mobile-phone use and cancers or other health problems in children and adults, pressure groups and some scientists dispute those findings. Denis Henshaw, Emeritus Professor at Bristol University and honorary scientific director of the Children with Cancer UK charity, is one of them.
“The dangers are being seriously underplayed,” he says. “We are seeing a rise in brain tumours in adults and children. And because brain tumours are relatively rare, we are talking small numbers, but the increase is there.
“Why should it come as any surprise that holding the equivalent of a small microwave oven to your ear should be a health risk?”
Prof Henshaw and others believe that mobile phone packaging should carry cigarette-style public health warnings rather than the advice being buried in manufacturers’ manuals. And Mr Whitfield agrees. “After I was diagnosed, I looked at my phone manual and very, very far down it says you should keep your phone at least 10mm away from your body at all times,” he says. “Hardly anyone reads those manuals, but even the manufacturers are admitting there is a safety issue here.”
Prof Henshaw also believes the growth in mobile-phone use over the past decade means that most scientific studies have yet to record the real effects on health.
But Prof Anthony Swerdlow, of the Institute of Cancer Research, disputes the claim that there has been an increase in brain tumours in children, saying Office for National Statistics figures show only a small increase in much older people. “We can’t be sure, but there is no evidence to show there is a link with brain cancers.”
The biggest study to date also failed to resolve the issue. The Interphone study, published in 2010, studied 13,000 adult users in 13 countries over 10 years. Researchers found that heavy users had a slightly higher risk of gliomas (a type of brain tumour), but concluded that they had neither proved a link with brain cancers, nor demonstrated that there wasn’t a risk.
Other scientists are not so sure. A Swedish researcher, Prof Lennart Hardell, has published a controversial paper that found children who use mobiles are five times more likely to develop brain tumours, although his results have been questioned by many scientists.
A French study, published last week, also found that heavy users of mobile phones may be at higher risk of gliomas and meningiomas. Researchers from the University of Bordeaux compared 447 adults with the tumours with a control group of almost 1,000 healthy people. They found that people who used their phones for more than 15 hours a month over five years were up to three times more likely to develop the tumours compared with those who rarely used a mobile.
But even the researchers admitted that the findings did not take into account other factors, such as smoking.
Phones and how we use them have also changed in the past 10 years. Most teenagers are now more likely to be texting and messaging than holding a device to their ear, and new smartphones emit fewer radio waves.
In 2011, the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified mobiles as a “possible carcinogen”. But the decision was highly controversial – some members of the scientific committee walked out of the proceedings in protest.
But certain countries are taking action. France has banned mobiles and Wi-Fi in primary schools, while phone shops in Canada are required to hand out safety leaflets.
Last year, the Italian supreme court ruled that a businessman’s brain tumour had been caused by mobile-phone use, in a case that could pave the way for European-wide class actions. The case has yet to be resolved.
But the mobile phone industry remains buoyant. “A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones are a potential health risk,” says John Cooke, executive director of the Mobile Operators Association. “To date, no adverse health effects have been established.”
For parents, the health risks are important – but a straw poll of mothers on Facebook last week found that many are more concerned about another impact of phones on their children.
“My son and his friends are messaging on their phones all the time,” said Hayley Brown, mother of a 17-year-old son and eight-year-old daughter. “I do worry about the health risks but I’m also concerned that they are losing the art of normal social interaction. It seems to be the only way they can communicate now.”