Friday, April 18, 2014

Wireless technology: The dark side of convenience

Wireless technology: The dark side of convenience


Fri. Apr. 18, 2014 by Ron Gordon 


Wireless Technology Warnings

(NaturalHealth365) The ancient Romans became sickened by seemingly safe lead pipes bringing drinking water. Today, the story repeats with wireless.




Something new is in the air. You can’t see it, hear it, smell it or feel it, but the cells in your body can. It’s called wireless technology.



Are we slowly cooking humanity to death?

Wireless fills the air around us with an invisible electrosmog of microwave radiation used for communication by devices like cell phones, mobile computers, and smart (utility) meters. The wireless age has revolutionized the way we live our lives – with smartphones tapping into our ancient human need to communicate and belong.

Many of us have willingly succumbed to the addiction of these modern conveniences handed to us by government and industry… but how many of us have stopped to ask: is this safe?

How does this stuff really work? Are we so desperately attached to our mobile devices that we no longer care to know the truth?

Behind the lure of convenience there is something industry would rather we not know: people are getting sick from wireless; there is a trail of ignored studies going back to WW2 showing stark dangers; our industry skewed safety ‘guidelines’ are obsolete and largely deceptive; and there is no proof that this technology is safe.

While Europe begins to awaken to the dangers and starts to step back, North America hurtles towards a potential public health disaster. Could it be that the ultimate cost of our wireless convenience is lethally short-sighted?

A new twist to old technology

Most people are not aware that wireless is a modern day adaptation of WW2 radar technologies, complete with most of its inherent risks. It’s difficult to relate to the nebulous nature of microwaves which pierce silently through the air around us at the speed of light, vibrating atoms at millions to billions of times per second, penetrating virtually everything including buildings, cement walls, and – unfortunately – our bodies and brains.

Silent and invisible, it’s easy to dismiss the radiation from the new cell tower down the street and slot it into the ‘no threat’ compartment of our minds. This, however, could be a fatal filing error.

We need water every day, which comes to us through pipes. We wouldn’t think of putting water into towers and sprinkling it all over ourselves just in case we wanted a drink, yet this is exactly what we do with microwave radiation. Instead of getting it through wires on demand, which works perfectly well and presents no risk, we now blast it silently and invisibly from thousands of cell towers and wifi’s – 24/7/365 – onto everyone.

Water is inert and harmless. Microwave radiation is not.

Our present exposure to man-made microwaves is 1 quintrillion (one followed by 18 zero’s) times greater than our natural exposure to these frequencies, and increasing rapidly. With a cell tower almost always within sight, smart meters on every home, and industry hell-bent on saturating every square centimeter of the planet with wireless signals, we are literally microwaving every living organism in a global biological experiment.

Is it any wonder that some of us are showing signs of being cooked?

The early warning signs are self-evident

On a pleasant spring morning, in 2006, the residents of the small village of Götene, Sweden arose and began to go about their daily routine. Unknown to most people, on this day a powerful ‘WiMAX’ station (a wireless internet access system) was activated for test purposes.

Before long some people began to feel ill, and the local hospital emergency room telephone began ringing with calls from people suffering from headaches, difficulty breathing, blurred vision, racing hearts and a range of other symptoms. The symptoms abated when the system was deactivated or if the sufferer left the area. On May 23, 2006, the story was covered on Sweden’s STV television station current affairs program, ‘Debatt’.

A decade earlier Swedish health authorities had noted that the widespread expansion of wireless signals coincided with a sharp but subtle decline in the overall health of the population. The number of Swedish workers on sick leave began to rise abruptly in late 1997 – after declining for years – and doubled in the next five years.

Today, about 270,000 Swedes are on disability for related impairments. Sweden, the historical epicenter of the cell phone industry with the longest exposed population, was the first country to recognize disabilities from electromagnetic radiation (‘EMR’) as a valid medical condition.

In spite of calming reassurances from public health authorities, increasing numbers of citizens appear to be presenting classic symptoms of microwave radiation sicknesses. The Russians, who coined the term, describe its effect as “reversible in the early stages, lethal over time”.

What is the communication industry hiding from us?

It is common for public health agencies to state that wireless is ‘safe’ and that there is ‘no reason for concern’. But, should we trust these opinions, when thousands of international doctors and scientists have become concerned enough to sign resolutions warning of the opposite?

After all, our authorities have been dead wrong many times before – remember thalidomide, lead, tobacco, and asbestos? In reality, our public health agencies – often lagging decades behind the marketplace – have a rather spectacular history of failure in protecting us from new products.

As chronic long-term exposure to EMR peaks at levels the human body has never before experienced, increasing numbers of us are beginning to succumb. Those highly sensitive are called ‘electrohypersensitives’ (‘EHS’). Are today’s EHS sufferers the early canaries in the coal mine – who’ve reached a tipping point we may all be headed for as exposures continue to increase?

EHS: An Environmental Sensitivity

About 3% of the general population appears to suffer serious to severe symptoms of EHS caused by exposure to EMR – in most cases, wireless devices. Another 35% of the general population has lesser symptoms such as impaired immune function and chronic illness.

EHS is defined by the World Health Organization as: “…a phenomenon where individuals experience adverse health effects while in the vicinity of devices emanating electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields.” Common initial symptoms are skin redness and rashes, fatigue, headaches, concentration problems, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitations, sleeplessness, and nervous disorders.

Marie (not her real name), is an ex-teacher in her late 50’s who considers herself typical of the EHS canaries. Also diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivities (there appears to be a link) her problem began when a headache and feeling of unease developed when using a cordless phone. Over time, the condition worsened.

Now, being around cell phones, wifi’s and other devices is intolerable – triggering headaches, nausea, dizziness, and twitchiness and nervous system disorders such as muscle spasms. She became so sensitive she could not enter her doctor’s office due to electrical devices – he would pay a ‘house call’ visit to her car as she waited in the parking lot.

Unable to work and on disability insurance, her personal life is severely limited. She must avoid places like public transit, shopping malls, public libraries and other buildings with wi-fi – which trigger her symptoms.

Frustrated EHS sufferers often feel abandoned in a type of medical and legal purgatory – electromagnetic refugees with an officially overlooked ‘invisible disease’. Doctors, few of whom are trained in the impairment, may attribute the symptoms to another ailment.

An informal but accurate description might be simply that these individuals are ‘allergic to electromagnetic frequencies’. Over time some take drastic personal measures to avoid radiation, including moving to rural areas. In desperation, some contemplate suicide.

Dr. Riina Bray of the Toronto Women’s College Hospital Environmental Health Clinic, one of the very few mainstream medical clinics treating EHS, has gone from seeing ‘zero’ EHS patients five years ago to now seeing 2 or 3 new patients each week. The patients almost universally blame their symptoms on wireless exposure.

“It’s a huge, huge problem” says Bray, who is calling for more education for physicians for what she calls a “major and fast-growing public-health menace”.

North American safety codes: A half-blind referee

In order to understand how industry can legally radiate citizens into sickness it’s necessary to understand how North America’s obsolete, inadequate, and industry friendly safety codes protects us – or more accurately – don’t. North America’s wireless safety codes are one of the world’s worst standards, being 100 to 1000 times less protective than some other countries.

The real problem, however, lies in a deceptive design flaw.

Designed decades ago, primarily for workers at radar sites and before cell phones existed, these standards only recognize short term ‘thermal’ effects of radiation – if the radiation source heats or burns your body. It completely ignores the more pervasive and subtle ‘non thermal’ effects which occur at far lower levels.

Volumes of scientific studies document the frightening effects of chronic long-term, low-level radiation that are simply ignored.

Standards like this are a like a half-blind referee that only sees one side of the playing field – the thermal side – while claiming the other side doesn’t exist – and that’s just the way industry wants it. This allows hydroelectric utilities to bolt a microwave radiating ‘smart meter’ to your home and tell you it’s ‘safe’. Technically, they are correct – in the context of obsolete and inadequate standards.

Beyond obsolete safety codes, lurking below the surface and hidden from public view is the vicious world of corporatized science in a multi-trillion dollar wireless industry. Paving the way to pushing wireless radiation into everyone’s living room has required the maintenance of outdated safety standards, muzzling and intimidation of scientists who report harm, manufacture of deceptive studies to obscure danger, and the hijacking of public health agencies.

Sound like big tobacco? This is bigger.

Wireless causes DNA breaks and cellular leakage

Andrew Goldsworthy, a retired Imperial College (UK) cell biologist with no industry affiliations who has studied this area extensively, attributes most of the health effects EHS sufferers report to a single cause: at certain frequencies, weak wireless signals – far below safety standards – which pull structurally important calcium ions off of our body’s cell membranes, weakening and causing them to leak.

Having its meticulously balanced systems destabilized, even slightly, by wireless triggered leakage wreaks biological chaos – subverting the integrity of the body’s intricate defense mechanisms and leaving it vulnerable to all manner of damage. Goldsworthy theorizes how many EHS symptoms can thus be explained: leaking skin cells cause rashes, tingling, numbness, burning sensations; leaking heart cells trigger potentially life-threatening arrhythmias; in the inner ear, leaking cochlear cells trigger tinnitus and leaking vestibular cells cause dizziness and other symptoms of motion sickness, including nausea.

The biological effects our safety standards ignore reads like a guest list to Dante’s inferno: DNA damage, genetic changes, breakdown in intra-cell communication, protein damage, immunological function changes, reproductive system damage, decreased sperm counts, cell damage and death, brain-blood barrier leakage, brain nerve cell damage, free radical increases, melatonin decreases, possible linkage to auto-immune diseases like MS, embryonic cell damage, fetal defects, heritable birth defects, and literally hundreds of potential illnesses related to leakage in cell membranes throughout the body.

While industry continues to deny, deflect, and off-balance studies finding harm, much independent science clearly points to wireless radiation as being antagonistic to the basic cellular roots of life.

This is serious stuff. While there are still many unknowns, it is clear that we’re only beginning to understand the complex health risks of the dangerous frequencies the wireless industry has unleashed on unsuspecting citizens.

Public health authorities asleep at the wheel

As the evidence accumulates, other countries have begun to wake up and resist the global wireless assault. Conceding to citizens enraged over cancer clusters, India has recently reduced their allowable EMR levels by a factor of 10 (they were already lower than North America’s) and banned cell towers from schools and hospitals.

The French National Assembly has banned wifi from schools until proven safe and banned advertising of cell phones to children. The German parliament, the Council of Europe, and the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection have all come out strongly against wifi in schools.

More than 30 international appeals and resolutions since 2000 warning of wireless dangers have attracted the signatures of thousands of international scientists and doctors.

The guiding concept of the ‘Precautionary Principle’ is ‘better safe than sorry’ – inferring that the onus is on industry to prove safety before exposing the public. As past experience has shown however, the truth about the risk of highly profitable toxins such as tobacco, asbestos, DDT, agent orange, thalidomide, X-rays, depleted uranium and others can often be suppressed – at all levels – until bodies begin to accumulate. Due perhaps to the unrelenting laws of inertia, this trend shows every sign of continuing.

A wireless legislative vacuum

We are in the midst of an explosion in wireless technology as legislation lags far behind. Neither industry nor public health authorities can present proof of safety.

There is strong evidence showing a correlation between chronic, low level microwave radiation that falls through the loopholes of our inadequate safety guidelines and a range of harmful biological effects including cancer. Except for a few activist citizen groups and the rare public figure, there are few advocating for the citizens already sick and suffering from wireless exposure, or for future generations who may be affected.

Professor Olle Johansson of Sweden, a recognized international expert in EMF radiation who has spent three decades researching this area, summarizes our current situation in four simple points – paraphrased for brevity:

1. Non-thermal health effects are demonstrated at levels significantly below existing standards.
2. Public safety standards are obsolete and inadequate for prolonged, low intensity exposures.
3. New standards are urgently needed.
4. It is not in the public interest to wait.
Like big tobacco, we can expect the wireless industry to continue to maximize profit without regard to human cost while our legislators look in the other direction. Welcome to big wireless.

Looking for natural health solutions? Sign up now – for our free, weekly show featuring the greatest minds in natural health and science plus free gifts!

About the author: Ron Gordon is a businessman who suffered a brain tumor in 2010 he attributes to earlier EMR frequency exposure. He continues to research the connection between wireless radiation and adverse health effects, and acts as a riding representative for the Canadians for Safe Technologies organization. For more information – visit: C4ST.org

Suggestions:


1. Minimize your exposure by using your cell phone as little as possible and always holding it away from your head. Texting is safer than talking.



2. Turn the cell phone off at night or when not in use. Do not carry it next to your body when it is turned on. Do not sleep with it turned on next to you.

3. Replace wireless devices with ‘wired’ if possible.

4. Replace ‘DECT’ (cordless) phones with corded and avoid the use of wireless baby monitors.

5. Avoid being in close proximity to cell towers and rooftop microwave antenna’s.

6. Most studies show significantly more harmful effects on children – children’s use of wireless devices should be prevented or minimized.


References:

1. Hallberg, O., Johansson, O. (2004) Does GSM 1800 Mhz. Affect The Public Health in Sweden? Stockholm: Karolinska Institute Publication



2. Lai, H., Levitt, B., (2010) Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays Retrieved August 24, 2013 from: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/A10-018

3. Havas, M., (2007), Guidelines-to-diagnosing-and-treating-patients-with-electrohypersensitivity. Retrieved August 24, 2013 from: http://www.magdahavas.com/austrian-medical-association-guidelines-to-diagnosing-and-treating-patients-with-electrohypersensitivity

4. Granlund-Lind, R., Lind, J. (2004), Black on White: Voices and Witnesses About Electro-Hypersensitivity The Swedish Experience. Retrieved 2013.08.20 from: http://www.feb.se/feb/blackonwhite-complete-book.pdf

5. Goldsworthy, A., (2012) The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields. Retrieved 2013.08.20 from: http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Biol-Effects-EMFs-2012-NZ2.pdf

6. Carlo, G., (2002). Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age: An Insider’s Alarming Discoveries about Cancer and Genetic Damage. New York: Carroll & Graf 

Publishers.
7. Ishisaka, N., (2011). UW Scientist Henry Lai Makes Waves in the Cell Phone Industry, Seattle Magazine, January 2011, retrieved August 24, 2013 from: http://www.seattlemag.com/article/nerd-report/nerd-report

8. Hallberg, O., Oberfeld, G., (2006). Letter to the Editor: Will We All Become Electrosensitive? Retrieved August 24 2013 from: http://www.next-up.org/pdf/EHS2006_HallbergOberfeld.pdf

9. Johannson, Olle. (August 30, 2012). Letter from Olle Johannson to Dr. Perry Kendall, Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, Retrieved Sept. 15, 2013 from http://ehsbc.ca/oj.pdf

- See more at: 

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Something's In the Air: Saturday is Electromagnetic Radiation Action Day

Something's In the Air: Saturday is Electromagnetic Radiation Action Day

Photo: Rich Farver died of brain cancer that his doctor says was caused by radiation from a cell tower. Courtesy: Virginia Farver

Photo: Rich Farver died of brain cancer that his doctor says was caused by radiation from a cell tower. Courtesy: Virginia Farver


April 17, 2014
FORT COLLINS, Colo. – This Saturday, concerned Coloradans will join others around the world for EMR Action Day – to highlight their concerns about the safety of electromagnetic radiation found in wireless Internet, cordless phones, microwaves TV and radio and other sources. 

Virginia Farver of Fort Collins has been fighting for protection from EMR for six years, after her son died from brain cancer that the doctor said was caused from cell phone radiation.

"I don't own one anymore and I do not have Wi-Fi in my home and I try to avoid this stuff as much as possible, which has led me into this smart-meter fight," she states.

Farver, like others around the country, is protesting the forcible installation of smart meters by utility companies that monitor energy usage. 

In March, after months of her protests against a wireless meter, Fort Collins Power and Light came to her home with police to install a meter. 

A representative from the utility says the meter it installed was in fact manually read, and has no broadcast capabilities.

Susan Clarke, a member of the EMR Action Day, did research at Harvard University on the biological effects of radio frequency radiation. 

She chooses to live her life free of cell phones and Wi-Fi, and says it is possible.

"People find that they sleep better, they feel so much better, they can think better, remember better, and their behavior is actually better too,” she maintains. “We all act, let's say, in a more kind and loving way toward each other when we're not bombarded by unnatural electromagnetic radiation."

Farver plans on buying a shield for the smart meter box that will offer her greater protection, but she can't do anything to protect her from neighboring meters. 

Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, smart meters are to be installed upon customer request, but Farver says that stipulation is being ignored.

"This is what's happening across the nation,” she stresses. “They are not telling anybody about these, they are just coming through the night and basically within a few days get all these meters installed before anybody really realizes what's going on," she says.

Farver's son Rich was one of at least eight people to die of brain cancer on the San Diego State University campus from 2008 to 2010. They all worked in close proximity to the same cell tower.
- See more at: 

http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2014-04-17/social-justice/somethings-in-the-air-saturday-is-electromagnetic-radiation-action-day/a38810-1#sthash.aILY0YzY.dpuf

Première indemnisation pour électrosensibilité (First compensation for EHS)

Première indemnisation pour électrosensibilité

Par figaro iconlefigaro.fr - le 17/04/2014

L'électrosensibilité n'est pas officiellement reconnue comme une maladie mais 1,5% à 2% de la population dit en souffrir.

JEFF PACHOUD/AFP
Les persons souffrant d'hypersensibilité aux ondes électromagnétiques doivent parfois revoir complètement leur quotidien.

Pour la première fois, un homme souffrant d'électrosensibilité s'est vu accorder une aide financière pour sa pathologie par la Maison départementale des personnes handicapées de l'Essonne, a-t-on appris jeudi auprès du Collectif des électrosensibles de France.
«C'est un premier pas», a déclaré Sophie Pelletier, coresponsable de cette association. «D'autres personnes avaient déjà obtenu le statut de travailleur handicapé en raison de leur électrosensibilité, mais recevoir une subvention pour acheter du matériel de protection, à notre connaissance, c'est une première.»
Depuis plusieurs années, cet homme de 32 ans, qui vit dans le sud de l'Essonne, ne supporte plus les ondes de télécommunications et est en arrêt maladie. Ses problèmes semblent avoir commencé à la suite d'une exposition dans le cadre de son travail à un appareil gérant des champs magnétiques.
L'électrosensibilité n'est pas officiellement reconnue comme une maladie et fait l'objet de controverses entre experts. Les personnes «électrohypersensibles» (EHS), qui représenteraient 1,5% à 2 % de la population, attribuent leur souffrance aux champs électromagnétiques de l'environnement. Migraine, vomissements, irritabilité extrême: les symptômes évoqués par les malades sont variables mais peuvent conduire à des situations extrêmes, obligeant certains d'entre eux à cesser de travailler ou à modifier totalement leur mode de vie. Sans nier la réalité de cette souffrance, l'Organisation mondiale de la santé et le conseil scientifique de la Commission européenne (Scenihr) ont conclu en 2012 qu'il n'y a pas de base scientifique permettant de relier les symptômes des EHS à une exposition aux champs électromagnétiques.

Une compensation pour des dépenses quotidiennes

La Maison départementale pour les personnes handicapées, sous la tutelle du Conseil général de l'Essonne, a attribué au malade une aide financière dont le montant n'a pas été précisé. «Il a déposé un dossier et une commission s'est réunie pour étudier l'impact de ses problèmes dans sa vie quotidienne et professionnelle et voir comment cela peut être compensé», a expliqué Sophie Pelletier.
Avec cette subvention, le jeune homme a prévu de s'acheter des instruments de mesure, du tissu de protection pour ses vêtements, un baldaquin afin de protéger son lit la nuit ou encore un logiciel de reconnaissance vocale pour ordinateur.
Fin mars, une femme souffrant d'électrosensibilité s'était réfugiée pendant une dizaine d'heures au sommet d'une grue à Antony (Hauts-de-Seine) afin de demander un relogement adapté à son état de santé. En juin 2013, le gouvernement a annoncé qu'il pourrait mettre en place une «surveillance sanitaire» autour de ce phénomène.
(Avec AFP)
LA RÉDACTION VOUS CONSEILLE:
http://sante.lefigaro.fr/actualite/2014/04/17/22237-premiere-indemnisation-pour-electrosensibilite

First compensation for EHS


Keywords : Electromagnetic waves

By Curb iconlefigaro.fr - the 4/17/2014

The EHS is not officially recognized as a disease but 1.5 % to 2 % of the population said to suffer.


JEFF PACHOUD / AFP
The persons with hypersensitivity to electromagnetic waves are sometimes completely revise their daily lives.

For the first time, a man suffering from EHS has been granted financial assistance for his condition by the Departmental House Disabilities Essonne , Has on Thursday with the Collective of electro France.

"This is a first step ," said Sophie Pelletier, co-leader of this association. " Other people had already achieved the status of disabled worker because of their EHS but receive a grant to purchase protective equipment , to our knowledge , this is a first. "

For several years, this 32 year old man , who lives in the south of Essonne , does not support the wave and telecommunications is on sick leave . His problems seem to have started after an exhibition in the context of its work to device manager magnetic fields.

The EHS is not officially recognized as a disease and is the subject of controversy among experts. The " electrohypersensitive persons" (EHS ), which represent 1.5 % to 2 % of the population , attribute their suffering to electromagnetic fields of the environment. Headache, vomiting, extreme irritability : the symptoms mentioned by patients are variable but can lead to extreme situations , forcing some of them to stop working or completely change their lifestyle. Without denying the reality of the suffering , the World Health Organization and the Scientific Council of the European Commission ( SCENIHR ) concluded in 2012 that there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to exposure to electromagnetic fields .

Compensation for daily expenses
The departmental home for people with disabilities under the supervision of the General Council of Essonne , assigned to the patient financial aid , the amount was not specified. "He filed a case and a committee met to consider the impact of its problems in his daily life and work and see how it can be compensated ," said Sophie Pelletier.

With this grant, the young man planned to buy measuring instruments, fabric protection for clothes , a canopy to protect her bed at night , or a voice recognition software for computer.
In late March, a woman suffering from EHS had fled for ten hours on top of a crane in Antony (Hauts -de- Seine ) to request a suitable relocation to his health . In June 2013, the government announced it would set up a " health surveillance " around this phenomenon.
(With AFP )

EDITOR'S ADVICE :
Electromagnetic waves in debate in the Assembly
The daily ordeal of an allergic waves
Survey intolerance nodes

http://sante.lefigaro.fr/actualite/2014/04/17/22237-premiere-indemnisation-pour-electrosensibilite

Your Cellphone Could Be a Major Health Risk, and the Industry Could Be a Lot More Upfront About It


Your Cellphone Could Be a Major Health Risk, and the Industry Could Be a Lot More Upfront About It

The science is becoming clearer: Sustained EMF exposure is dangerous.

April 17, 2014  |
Photo Credit: Jason Stitt/Shutterstock.com
The following is an excerpt from  “Overpowered: What Science Tells Us About the Dangers of Cell Phones and Other Wifi-age Devices” by Martin Blank, PhD. Published by Seven Stories Press, March 2014. ISBN 978-1-60980-509-8. All rights reserved.
This excerpt was originally published by Salon.com.
You may not realize it, but you are participating in an unauthorized experiment—“the largest biological experiment ever,” in the words of Swedish neuro-oncologist Leif Salford. For the first time, many of us are holding high-powered microwave transmitters—in the form of cell phones—directly against our heads on a daily basis.
Cell phones generate electromagnetic fields (EMF), and emit electromagnetic radiation (EMR). They share this feature with all modern electronics that run on alternating current (AC) power (from the power grid and the outlets in your walls) or that utilize wireless communication. Different devices radiate different levels of EMF, with different characteristics.
What health effects do these exposures have?
Therein lies the experiment.
The many potential negative health effects from EMF exposure (including many cancers and Alzheimer’s disease) can take decades to develop. So we won’t know the results of this experiment for many years—possibly decades. But by then, it may be too late for billions of people.
Today, while we wait for the results, a debate rages about the potential dangers of EMF. The science of EMF is not easily taught, and as a result, the debate over the health effects of EMF exposure can get quite complicated. To put it simply, the debate has two sides. On the one hand, there are those who urge the adoption of a precautionary approach to the public risk as we continue to investigate the health effects of EMF exposure. This group includes many scientists, myself included, who see many danger signs that call out strongly for precaution. On the other side are those who feel that we should wait for definitive proof of harm before taking any action. The most vocal of this group include representatives of industries who undoubtedly perceive threats to their profits and would prefer that we continue buying and using more and more connected electronic devices.
This industry effort has been phenomenally successful, with widespread adoption of many EMF-generating technologies throughout the world. But EMF has many other sources as well. Most notably, the entire power grid is an EMF-generation network that reaches almost every individual in America and 75% of the global population. Today, early in the 21st century, we find ourselves fully immersed in a soup of electromagnetic radiation on a nearly continuous basis.
What we know
The science to date about the bioeffects (biological and health outcomes) resulting from exposure to EM radiation is still in its early stages. We cannot yet predict that a specific type of EMF exposure (such as 20 minutes of cell phone use each day for 10 years) will lead to a specific health outcome (such as cancer). Nor are scientists able to define what constitutes a “safe” level of EMF exposure.
However, while science has not yet answered all of our questions, it has determined one fact very clearly—all electromagnetic radiation impacts living beings. As I will discuss, science demonstrates a wide range of bioeffects linked to EMF exposure. For instance, numerous studies have found that EMF damages and causes mutations in DNA—the genetic material that defines us as individuals and collectively as a species. Mutations in DNA are believed to be the initiating steps in the development of cancers, and it is the association of cancers with exposure to EMF that has led to calls for revising safety standards. This type of DNA damage is seen at levels of EMF exposure equivalent to those resulting from typical cell phone use.
The damage to DNA caused by EMF exposure is believed to be one of the mechanisms by which EMF exposure leads to negative health effects. Multiple separate studies indicate significantly increased risk (up to two and three times normal risk) of developing certain types of brain tumors following EMF exposure from cell phones over a period of many years. One review that averaged the data across 16 studies found that the risk of developing a tumor on the same side of the head as the cell phone is used is elevated 240% for those who regularly use cell phones for 10 years or more. An Israeli study found that people who use cell phones at least 22 hours a month are 50% more likely to develop cancers of the salivary gland (and there has been a four-fold increase in the incidence of these types of tumors in Israel between 1970 and 2006). And individuals who lived within 400 meters of a cell phone transmission tower for 10 years or more were found to have a rate of cancer three times higher than those living at a greater distance. Indeed, the World Health Organization (WHO) designated EMF—including power frequencies and radio frequencies—as a possible cause of cancer.
While cancer is one of the primary classes of negative health effects studied by researchers, EMF exposure has been shown to increase risk for many other types of negative health outcomes. In fact, levels of EMF thousands of times lower than current safety standards have been shown to significantly increase risk for neurodegenerative diseases (such as Alzheimer’s and Lou Gehrig’s disease) and male infertility associated with damaged sperm cells. In one study, those who lived within 50 meters of a high voltage power line were significantly more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease when compared to those living 600 meters or more away. The increased risk was 24% after one year, 50% after 5 years, and 100% after 10 years. Other research demonstrates that using a cell phone between two and four hours a day leads to 40% lower sperm counts than found in men who do not use cell phones, and the surviving sperm cells demonstrate lower levels of motility and viability.
EMF exposure (as with many environmental pollutants) not only affects people, but all of nature. In fact, negative effects have been demonstrated across a wide variety of plant and animal life. EMF, even at very low levels, can interrupt the ability of birds and bees to navigate. Numerous studies link this effect with the phenomena of avian tower fatalities (in which birds die from collisions with power line and communications towers). These same navigational effects have been linked to colony collapse disorder (CCD), which is devastating the global population of honey bees (in one study, placement of a single active cell phone in front of a hive led to the rapid and complete demise of the entire colony). And a mystery illness affecting trees around Europe has been linked to WiFi radiation in the environment.
There is a lot of science—highquality, peer-reviewed science—demonstrating these and other very troubling outcomes from exposure to electromagnetic radiation. These effects are seen at levels of EMF that, according to regulatory agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates cell phone EMF emissions in the United States, are completely safe.
An unlikely activist
I have worked at Columbia University since the 1960s, but I was not always focused on electromagnetic fields. My PhDs in physical chemistry from Columbia University and colloid science from the University of Cambridge provided me with a strong, interdisciplinary academic background in biology, chemistry, and physics. Much of my early career was spent investigating the properties of surfaces and very thin films, such as those found in a soap bubble, which then led me to explore the biological membranes that encase living cells.
I studied the biochemistry of infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS), which causes the lungs of newborns to collapse (also called hyaline membrane disease). Through this research, I found that the substance on the surface of healthy lungs could form a network that prevented collapse in healthy babies (the absence of which causes the problem for IRDS sufferers).
A food company subsequently hired me to study how the same surface support mechanism could be used to prevent the collapse of the air bubbles added to their ice cream. As ice cream is sold by volume and not by weight, this enabled the company to reduce the actual amount of ice cream sold in each package. (My children gave me a lot of grief about that job, but they enjoyed the ice cream samples I brought home.)
I also performed research exploring how electrical forces interact with the proteins and other components found in nerve and muscle membranes. In 1987, I was studying the effects of electric fields on membranes when I read a paper by Dr. Reba Goodman demonstrating some unusual effects of EMF on living cells. She had found that even relatively weak power fields from common sources (such as those found near power lines and electrical appliances) could alter the ability of living cells to make proteins. I had long understood the importance of electrical forces on the function of cells, but this paper indicated that magnetic forces (which are a key aspect of electromagnetic fields) also had significant impact on living cells.
Like most of my colleagues, I did not think this was possible. By way of background, there are some types of EMF that everyone had long acknowledged are harmful to humans. For example, X-rays and ultraviolet radiation are both recognized carcinogens. But these are ionizing forms of radiation. Dr. Goodman, however, had shown that even non-ionizingradiation, which has much less energy than X-rays, was affecting a very basic property of cells—the ability to stimulate protein synthesis.
Because non-ionizing forms of EMF have so much less energy than ionizing radiation, it had long been believed that non-ionizing electromagnetic fields were harmless to humans and other biological systems. And while it was acknowledged that a high enough exposure to non-ionizing EMF could cause a rise in body temperature—and that this temperature increase could cause cell damage and lead to health problems—it was thought that low levels of non-ionizing EMF that did not cause this rise in temperature were benign.
In over 20 years of experience at some of the world’s top academic institutions, this is what I’d been taught and this is what I’d been teaching. In fact, my department at Columbia University (like every other comparable department at other universities around the world) taught an entire course in human physiology without even mentioning magnetic fields, except when they were used diagnostically to detect the effects of the electric currents in the heart or brain. Sure magnets and magnetic fields can affect pieces of metal and other magnets, but magnetic fields were assumed to be inert, or essentially powerless, when it came to human physiology.
As you can imagine, I found the research in Dr. Goodman’s paper intriguing. When it turned out that she was a colleague of mine at Columbia, with an office just around the block, I decided to follow up with her, face-to-face. It didn’t take me long to realize that her data and arguments were very convincing. So convincing, in fact, that I not only changed my opinion on the potential health effects of magnetism, but I also began a long collaboration with her that has been highly productive and personally rewarding.
During our years of research collaboration, Dr. Goodman and I published many of our results in respected scientific journals. Our research was focused on the cellular level—how EMF permeate the surfaces of cells and affect cells and DNA—and we demonstrated several observable, repeatable health effects from EMF on living cells. As with all findings published in such journals, our data and conclusions were peer reviewed. In other words, our findings were reviewed prior to publication to ensure that our techniques and conclusions, which were based on our measurements, were appropriate. Our results were subsequently confirmed by other scientists, working in other laboratories around the world, independent from our own.
A change in tone
Over the roughly 25 years Dr. Goodman and I have been studying the EMF issue, our work has been referenced by numerous scientists, activists, and experts in support of public health initiatives including the BioInitiative Report, which was cited by the European Parliament when it called for stronger EMF regulations. Of course, our work was criticized in some circles, as well. This was to be expected, and we welcomed it—discussion and criticism is how science advances. But in the late 1990s, the criticism assumed a different character, both angrier and more derisive than past critiques.
On one occasion, I presented our findings at a US Department of Energy annual review of research on EMF. As soon as I finished my talk, a well-known Ivy League professor said (without any substantiation) that the data I presented were “impossible.” He was followed by another respected academic, who stated (again without any substantiation) that I had most likely made some “dreadful error.” Not only were these men wrong, but they delivered their comments with an intense and obvious hostility.
I later discovered that both men were paid consultants of the power industry—one of the largest generators of EMF. To me, this explained the source of their strong and unsubstantiated assertions about our research. I was witnessing firsthand the impact of private, profit-driven industrial efforts to confuse and obfuscate the science of EMF bioeffects.
Not the first time
I knew that this was not the first time industry opposed scientific research that threatened their business models. I’d seen it before many times with tobacco, asbestos, pesticides, hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”), and other industries that paid scientists to generate “science” that would support their claims of product safety.
That, of course, is not the course of sound science. Science involves generating and testing hypotheses. One draws conclusions from the available, observable evidence that results from rigorous and reproducible experimentation. Science is not sculpting evidence to support your existing beliefs. That’s propaganda. As Dr. Henry Lai (who, along with Dr. Narendra Singh, performed the groundbreaking research demonstrating DNA damage from EMF exposure) explains, “a lot of the studies that are done right now are done purely as PR tools for the industry.”
An irreversible trend
Of course EMF exposure—including radiation from smart phones, the power lines that you use to recharge them, and the other wide variety of EMF-generating technologies—is not equivalent to cigarette smoking. Exposure to carcinogens and other harmful forces from tobacco results from the purely voluntary, recreational activity of smoking. If tobacco disappeared from the world tomorrow, a lot of people would be very annoyed, tobacco farmers would have to plant other crops, and a few firms might go out of business, but there would be no additional impact.
In stark contrast, modern technology (the source of the humanmade electromagnetic fields discussed here) has fueled a remarkable degree of innovation, productivity, and improvement in the quality of life. If tomorrow the power grid went down, all cell phone networks would cease operation, millions of computers around the world wouldn’t turn on, and the night would be illuminated only by candlelight and the moon—we’d have a lot less EMF exposure, but at the cost of the complete collapse of modern society.
EMF isn’t just a by-product of modern society. EMF, and our ability to harness it for technological purposes, is the cornerstone of modern society. Sanitation, food production and storage, health care—these are just some of the essential social systems that rely on power and wireless communication. We have evolved a society that is fundamentally reliant upon a set of technologies that generate forms and levels of electromagnetic radiation not seen on this planet prior to the 19th century.
As a result of the central role these devices play in modern life, individuals are understandably predisposed to resist information that may challenge the safety of activities that result in EMF exposures. People simply cannot bear the thought of restricting their time with— much less giving up—these beloved gadgets. This gives industry a huge advantage because there is a large segment of the public that would rather not know.
Precaution
My message is not to abandon gadgets—like most people, I too love and utilize EMF-generating gadgets. Instead, I want you to realize that EMF poses a real risk to living creatures and that industrial and product safety standards must and can be reconsidered. The solutions I suggest are not prohibitive. I recommend that as individuals we adopt the notion of “prudent avoidance,” minimizing our personal EMF exposure and maximizing the distance between us and EMF sources when those devices are in use. Just as you use a car with seat belts and air bags to increase the safety of the inherently dangerous activity of driving your car at a relatively high speed, you should consider similar risk-mitigating techniques for your personal EMF exposure.
On a broader social level, adoption of the Precautionary Principle in establishing new, biologically based safety standards for EMF exposure for the general public would be, I believe, the best approach. Just as the United States became the first nation in the world to regulate the production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) when science indicated the threat to earth’s ozone layer—long before there was definitive proof of such a link—our governments should respond to the significant public health threat of EMF exposure. If EMF levels were regulated just as automobile carbon emissions are regulated, this would force manufacturers to design, create, and sell devices that generate much lower levels of EMF.
No one wants to return to the dark ages, but there are smarter and safer ways to approach our relationship—as individuals and across society—with the technology that exposes us to electromagnetic radiation.
Dr. Martin Blank is an expert on the health-related effects of electromagnetic fields and has been studying the subject for more than thirty years. He earned his first PhD from Columbia University in physical chemistry and his second from the University of Cambridge in colloid science. From 1968 to 2011, he taught as an associate professor at Columbia University, where he now acts as a special lecturer. Dr. Blank has served as an invited expert regarding EMF safety for Canadian Parliament, for the House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy (HNRE) in Vermont, and for Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court. 

ELETTROSMOG E MALATTIE: ANCHE LA DEPRESSIONE?

ELETTROSMOG E MALATTIE: ANCHE LA DEPRESSIONE?

Vota questo articolo
(0 Voti)
ELETTROSMOG E MALATTIE: ANCHE LA DEPRESSIONE?
SESTO SAN GIOVANNI - E' di ieri la notizia della richiesta, da parte dei sindaci di Sesto e di Milano, di due studi per verificare da una parte i campi elettromagnetici, dall'altra l'incidenza di malattie che potrebbero essere connesse all'elettrodotto del quartiere Adriano. 
Un risultato importante, per l'associazione di via Sottocorno, che negli ultimi anni ha contato una ventina di morti per tumori o malattie degenerative e una quarantina di malati in sole 150 famiglie.  L'associazione chiede però che a condurre le indagini sia l'Istituto superiore di sanità, che ne ha condotta una molto simile in provincia di Roma. Vorrebbero inoltre essere chiamati a partecipare ai tavoli tecnici per poter dare il loro contributo e ribadire quanto in ogni caso sia fondamentale l'interramento dell'elettrodotto.
Gli studi, se saranno portati avanti, proveranno a capire meglio la correlazione tra presenza dei cavi e malattie.
L'elenco delle patologie di cui si sospetta una maggiore incidenza nelle zone interessate è lungo e drammatico: tumori, disturbi cardiovascolari, demenze senili, leucemie e malattie degenerative, ma anche infertilità e aborti spontanei. 
Ma c'è un altro preoccupante sospetto che si sta facendo strada negli ultimi mesi. Che ci sia un collegamento tra elettrosmog e depressioni sfociate in suicidi.
Anche su questo l'associazione di via Sottocorno vorrebbe approfondimenti. Se ne sta occupando insieme alle associazioni che con lei fanno rete, in particolare la "Lorenzo Perrone", associazione colognese che si occupa di prevenzione delle malattie oncologiche e oncoematologiche, "La lampada di Aladino" di Brugherio, per l'assistenza al malato oncologico, e l'Associazione italiana elettrosensibili. 
I primi dati preoccupanti, come riportato sul quotidiano il Giorno,arrivano da Brugherio. Qui il passaparola ha sollevato interrogativi per il fatto che, a fronte di un'incidenza prevista in città di 1,43 suicidi per depressione all'anno, se ne sono registrati già 4 in quattro mesi (per la provincia di Monza e Brianza, l'incidenza dovrebbe essere di 4,3 ogni centomila abitanti: Brugherio ha 33mila abitanti). Pur senza voler suscitare allarmismi, perché potrebbe essere una coincidenza, le associazioni voglio sollevare il problema.
La richiesta è quella di iniziare un tavolo tecnico tra Comuni e associazioni, in modo da avviare un Osservatorio in grado di portare qualche informazione in più sui rischi presenti sul territorio. 

Ultima modifier il