SaskPower Halts Smart Meter Installations Following Fires
| |||
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
SaskPower Halts Smart Meter Installations Following Fires
The World's Largest Experiment
The World's Largest Experiment
“The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them
know anything about the subject.” -Marcus Aurelius
We live in a dangerous world. We are threatened by natural
disasters such as earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, and blizzards. We can just
as easily fall victim to microbes too small to be seen by the naked eye such as
viruses, bacteria, fungi, and protozoa. We may suffer physical injury as a
result of our own actions or those of others. One can die as swiftly by falling
off one’s own roof as by being hit by a drunk driver or blown to bits by a
terrorist.
There are also unseen and generally unrecognized hazards.
While we pride ourselves on ridding the environment of second-hand smoke and
turn our societal attention to the elimination of trans-fats in prepared foods,
we are willfully ignoring more real and present dangers. It is quite likely
that we are in the process of demonstrating that suicide is just as deadly if
committed as a civilization as it is when one person takes his or her own life.
There has been a dramatic change in disease incidence over
the past half-century. It is also clear that the rate of change is
accelerating. For the past five years I have been speaking about the change in
cancer rates from the 1950s to the turn of the century. In 1955, I have
explained, the lifetime risk of cancer was 1 in 12. One out of every twelve
people in the United States could expect to develop cancer at some point in his
or her life. This would almost always be late in onset – in one’s sixties, seventies,
or eighties. By 2000, I have been telling audiences, the lifetime cancer risk
stood at 1 in 4 and was expected to reach 1 in 3 by the end of the decade.
I was wrong. Very wrong! According to the SEER Cancer
Statistics Review released by the National Cancer Institute in April, 2006, the
lifetime risk of developing cancer is now closer to 1 in 2 (47 % for men and 42
% for women). This estimate is based upon data collected from 2001 to 2003 (the
most recent years for which statistics are available). This means that while we
thought the risk of developing cancer at the turn of the twenty-first century
was 1 in 4 it was actually 1 in 2!
It appears that the incidence of cancer is increasing so
rapidly that we can no longer accurately project what the future holds for each
of us. In a 2000 interview with reporter Linda Howe, Dr. Robert Becker, who has
been following the increasing incidence of cancer and other diseases, suggested
that it is not unreasonable to expect the lifetime risk of cancer to reach 100
% or even 200 % -two cancers per person.
Another disease process that is increasing in frequency is
Alzheimer’s disease. First identified one hundred years ago and relatively rare
in the mid-twentieth century, it has risen to the seventh leading cause of death
in the United States. In November 2006 the Los Angeles Times reported that the
death rate from Alzheimer’s disease in Los Angeles County had risen an
astounding 220 % in the decade between 1994 and 2003. The report was based upon
statistics released by the Los Angeles Health Department.
Attention Deficit Disorder did not exist in 1950. It was
rare in the 1970s. Today it is present in epidemic proportions. Ten percent of
the United States’ population is said to be affected. One out of every three
boys in some classrooms is classified as having ADD or ADHD, and girls are
being diagnosed with increasing frequency.
Fibromyalgia syndrome, rarely described before 1975, was not
officially declared a syndrome and accepted as a medical diagnosis until 1993.
In its Copenhagen Declaration the World Health Organization stated,
"Fibromyalgia is part of a wider syndrome encompassing headaches,
irritable bladder, dysmenorrhea, cold sensitivity, Reynaud's phenomenon,
restless legs, atypical patterns of numbness and tingling, exercise
intolerance, and complaints of weakness." Depression was also mentioned as
a common finding in individuals with the syndrome.
It is believed that up to 5 % of the population of the
United States is currently affected by fibromyalgia and some believe that 1 out
of 3 people will experience its symptoms at some point during their lives.
The prevalence of sleep disorders is currently felt to be 1
in 6 – approximately 40 million people in the United States having sleep
difficulty at any given time. Restless legs syndrome, recognized but rare
thirty years ago, is now believed to be present in approximately 3 % of the
U.S. populace.
It is possible to summarize the change in disease prevalence
by stating that cancer and rheumatic, psychiatric, and neurological disorders
have been occurring with increasing frequency since 1955 and that they have
been rising exponentially since 1975. Attempts to explain this unprecedented
rise in illness as due to “improved diagnosis and reporting”, “poor eating
habits”, an “aging population”, or “mass hysteria” can not be taken seriously.
Something is systematically destroying the integrity of the human body.
During my days as a respected physician within the
mainstream medical community I subscribed to the Tufts University Diet and
Nutrition Letter, thinking that I was keeping up to date in the field of
nutrition. The Tufts Letter took a dim view of nutritional supplementation.
When I expanded my reading to include sources supportive of supplementation, I
started to incorporate nutritional supplementation into my treatment regimens.
Naively, I still viewed myself as an upstanding member of the medical
community.
One day a new issue of the Diet and Nutrition Letter
arrived, which contained an article titled “Twenty ways to spot a quack.” I
took the quiz and, to my amazement, met 18 of the 20 criteria. Without knowing
it I had become a certifiable quack, a derogatory term applied by “real
doctors” to anyone who dares to step outside the narrowly defined boundaries of
allopathic medical practice. After the shock wore off I accepted the label with
a newfound sense of freedom, knowing that it was futile to continue to strive
to maintain an appearance of propriety within the medical community.
I mention this because I know of nothing that will raise the
cry of “quackery” more loudly than what I am going to propose. It is important
that you understand that “quackery” does not mean the absence of logic,
scientific study, accuracy or effectiveness. It simply means “something not currently
recognized or accepted by mainstream allopathic medicine.”
We live in an electromagnetic universe. The light we see is
only a small portion of what is called the electromagnetic spectrum. You and I
emit infrared energy that is slightly outside of the visible spectrum.
Electromagnetic radiation consists of vibrations or waves. It is classified by
wavelength, the distance from the peak of one wave to the peak of the next,
frequency (speed), and energy level. On one end of the spectrum are gamma rays,
which have short wavelengths, high frequency and high energy. At the other end
are AM radio waves that have long wavelengths, low frequencies and low energy
(See Figure 1).
Figure 1. From
Advanced Light Source (www-als.lbl.gov)
Radiation on the short wavelength, high frequency side of
the spectrum is referred to as ionizing radiation. Radiation of long wavelength
and low frequency is called non-ionizing radiation. The most significant forms
of non-ionizing radiation are radio frequencies and microwaves (RF/MW).
That ionizing radiation can damage living tissues and
trigger disease is universally accepted by the medical community. On the other
hand, the suggestion that non-ionizing radiation, such as FM radio and
television broadcasts, cellular telephone signals, and computer WiFi networks,
can cause harm is almost universally rejected. Nevertheless, I am convinced,
beyond a shadow of doubt, that the unprecedented rise in cancer and diseases of
the neuromuscular system is due largely, if not exclusively, to the increased
presence of RF/MW radiation in the environment. That holding such an opinion
raises my quack score is of no consequence. I cannot remain silent in the light
of what is known about the relationship of RF/MW to human illness.
I am aware that published studies in major journals
overwhelmingly support the opinion that RF/MW is safe and has no effect upon
human health. That does not surprise me. Researchers who report adverse effects
from RF/MW lose their funding. Dr. Jerry Phillips, for example, received a
research grant from Motorola Corporation. When he found evidence of damage
caused by RF/MW radiation and reported his findings to Motorola he was told
that his work was not ready for publication. He was offered additional funding
to continue his experiment (get it right). Phillips refused to cover up his
data and did publish it, but his funding was cut off and he has not been able
to do any additional RF/MW studies. Inexplicably, when Dr. Phillips article
appeared in print it concluded with the statement that while changes were
observed, they were “probably of no physiological significance.”
The source of funding for RF/MW research is of grave concern
given the marked difference in results of industry or military sponsored
studies and those of independent researchers. While the number of published
studies showing no DNA damage from RF/MW radiation is approximately equal to
the number of studies that report DNA damage, the funding bias is immediately
apparent (Figure 2).
Similarly, a University of Washington analysis found that
biological effects of RF/MW are reported in 81 % of non-industry funded
studies, but in only 19 % of those funded by industry – which, outside of the
military, is the only source of funding today. When confronted with these statistics
the response of Dr. Mays Swicord, director of electromagnetic research at
Motorola, responded that industry funds quality work while independent research
is “sloppy”.
When the work of researchers critical to RF/MW is cited the
authors are often referred to not as scientists, but as “scientists”, the
brackets giving the same implication for PhDs as the word quack does for
physicians. They are no longer real scientists; they are “scientists” who do
not deserve the title, and their work is “controversial”. Professor Henry Lai
of the University of Washington, who was the first to demonstrate RF/MW induced
DNA damage, was subsequently threatened with litigation by an industry group,
which also sought his firing by the university.
Closely related to the loss of funding issue is the ability
of RF/MW safety advocates to state that studies demonstrating an adverse effect
have not been replicated. No funding, no research, no replication. Yet this
charge is used regularly to discredit the original findings.
Industries that rely heavily upon radio wave or microwave
technology liberally support individuals and institutions that publish studies
that support the contention that the technologies are safe. It is not
particularly difficult to design studies to achieve a predetermined or desired
result. This may be happening in the area of RF/MW, as I have observed that
whenever a study has been published that demonstrates an adverse effect of
RF/MW others soon follow to rebut the findings. This was almost certainly true
in the case of the “Dead Mice Walking” study, which I will detail later.
There are many reasons why studies would fail to demonstrate
that a problem exists. The most glaring miscalculation is the assumption that
there are “safe” and “unsafe” levels of radiation. The overwhelming majority of
studies compare the prevalence of disease in subjects who live close to a
broadcast or cellular telephone tower to those living some distance away from
the tower. Likewise, they may compare cell phone users to non-users. If, as
independent research has shown, there is no “safe” level of RF/MW, the results
of such studies are meaningless, as they are simply comparing one group of
people who are being radiated with another group of people who are being
radiated. Failing to find a difference in disease incidence does not prove that
radiation is “safe” unless one assumes (and there is no basis upon which to do
so) that only intense radiation has the capability of producing adverse
effects.
Another indefensible assumption used in most RF/MW studies
is that only the generation of heat will cause damage. The heat theory of
safety was shown to be false by a Walter Reed Army Research program finding
that, “Microwave energy of the militarily significant range of 1 to 15 GHz
enters into all organ systems of the body and therefore constitutes a danger to
all organ systems.” (Cellular telephones operate in the 2.4 to 5.8 GHz range.)
“Safe” levels of RF/MW radiation were set by determining,
for example, how much RF/MW radiation is required to heat water in a balloon.
The fact that the human body relies upon low-level electrical and magnetic
gradients to maintain integrity and to carry on intercellular communication was
never considered when “safe” levels were being established.
One of the recurring arguments against funding research into
the health effects of RF/MW is that “levels of microwave radiation used for
cellular telephone or WiFi networks are well below the levels that are known to
be safe.” The industry is able to discount any health challenge perceived to be
related to RF/MW because “the level of radiation is 100 times below the level
that has been shown to be safe.”
The greatest difficulty, however, is investigative bias.
Mark Twain cleverly quipped, “There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies,
and statistics.” His observation was profound – investigators can flip the
conclusion of a study 180 degrees depending upon which form of statistical
analysis they choose to apply. Next month I will contrast two studies that
looked at exactly the same data. One, which gained publication in a United
States journal, found a cluster of cancer cases to be completely random. The other,
published in an obscure journal, used more sophisticated methods of analysis
and found the relationship of the cancer cases to RF radiation to be so strong
that the computer program could not calculate the odds of it occurring by
chance.
Closely related to investigator bias is editorial bias,
commonly referred to as “peer review”. Journal editors review submitted papers,
purportedly to weed out those that do not follow high research standards. In
reality, journal editors arbitrarily select articles that support the position
the journal wishes to promote.
A prime example of editorial bias is the journal Radiation
Research. The July 2006 issue of Microwave Newscarried the results of an
investigation into Radiation Research’s editorial record. Over the past 16
yearsRadiation Research has published only one paper that showed an adverse
effect of RF/MW. In contrast, the journal has carried twenty-one articles that
claim that RF/MW radiation does not cause any adverse effects. (The author of
the only adverse study published lost her funding, and was forced to move to a
different line of research.)
While the editors of Radiation Research contend that they
are publishing based upon quality rather than study conclusions, the evidence
suggests otherwise. One of the studies Radiation Research chose to publish has
come to be known as “Dead Mice Walking”. Supported by Motorola, the study was
published soon after an independent study had shown an increased cancer rate in
mice exposed to RF/MW radiation. The study is widely used today to support the
contention that RF/MW radiation is harmless, but mice that were shown to have
died at one point in the study were still being counted and weighed in another.
The last decade has seen a dramatic increase in RF/MW
radiation. We have seen the introduction of high-speed cellular communication
networks, WiFi hot spots, and Bluetooth connectivity. Looming on the horizon is
WiMax, which will create citywide RF/MW networks.
The total affect that RF/MW expansion will have on human health
is as yet unknown, but the outlook is ominous. I will continue next month
discussing what has been called, “The largest experiment in the history of the
world.”
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
World's first creche for technology and car keys to get families connecting
World's first creche for technology and car keys to get families connecting
Published Tuesday 22 July 2014
The world’s first Tech Crèche has been launched to offer visitors a proper family day out, leaving their car and technology behind.
EMF Summit Shares Cases of The Effects of EMF Radiation
EMF Summit Shares Cases of The Effects of EMF Radiation
Longevity Rescuer Alison Heath tackles the distressing amount of false information given to us regarding EMF Radiation in her latest video. Her term for this is “junk science” – inaccurate studies and half-truths given to the consumers by the industry. This is to make people feel better installing wireless internet and buying WiFi-ready phones for their children.
“Your cell phone and wireless are perfectly safe” Ms Heath says, opening the video. “That's what the industry would like you to believe. But it just isn't so. Don't be fooled” she adds. Dirty electricity and electrosmog have recently become a serious health hazard – for those who are aware. Information regarding these issues have been hidden, no longer available for public consumption, and Ms Heath feels that this just isn't right.
Scientists like Dr. Henry Lai and Dr. Samuel Milham have dedicated their work to researching and studying the effects of EMF radiation on the human body. Dr. Milham first alerted the world to the dangers of dirty electricity, while Dr. Lai has proven that low EMF radiation can cause neurological damage to DNA. Ms Heath expresses distress over the fact that these people have been blacklisted and discredited just for stepping up and speaking out.
Those who are extremely susceptible to the effects of EMF radiation have what is called Electromagnetic Hyper Sensitivity. This condition is extremely fatal in children, the elderly, and the infirm. The irony of it all, Ms Heath says, is that schools have wireless internet and hospitals are full of extreme magnetic fields.
Alison Heath recounts a story told to her by Sharon Noble, director of Citizens for Safe Technologies and founder of Stop Smart Meters BC. A school in Simcoe county installed wireless internet on their campus. Shortly after that, the children had heart attacks. She believes some were reported to be fatal.
Smart Meters are another major source of EMF radiation, and yet some people do not have the option to say no to Smart Meters being installed near their homes. There is currently a Human Rights Class Action Law Suit against that. Human Rights demand that the people be given protection; even electromagnetic hypersensitivity protection. “In this case,” Ms Heath states, “we are definitely not protected.”
In the end, the best electromagnetic hypersensitivity treatment is really to opt out of wireless. Ms Heath encourages people to return to ethernet cables, stop giving children cell phones, and refrain from using smart meters. She reiterates the Precautionary Principle; simply take precautions. “Protect yourself. Do what you can to be safe.”
Alison Heath will be hosting the EMF Summit – the first free online EMF event – and will be joined by Sharon Noble and Dr. Magda Havas, among others. She invites her viewers to take part in it as well. You can find her on her website http://longevityrescuer.com/, or learn more about the EMF Summit at http://emfsummit.com/.
“Your cell phone and wireless are perfectly safe” Ms Heath says, opening the video. “That's what the industry would like you to believe. But it just isn't so. Don't be fooled” she adds. Dirty electricity and electrosmog have recently become a serious health hazard – for those who are aware. Information regarding these issues have been hidden, no longer available for public consumption, and Ms Heath feels that this just isn't right.
Scientists like Dr. Henry Lai and Dr. Samuel Milham have dedicated their work to researching and studying the effects of EMF radiation on the human body. Dr. Milham first alerted the world to the dangers of dirty electricity, while Dr. Lai has proven that low EMF radiation can cause neurological damage to DNA. Ms Heath expresses distress over the fact that these people have been blacklisted and discredited just for stepping up and speaking out.
Those who are extremely susceptible to the effects of EMF radiation have what is called Electromagnetic Hyper Sensitivity. This condition is extremely fatal in children, the elderly, and the infirm. The irony of it all, Ms Heath says, is that schools have wireless internet and hospitals are full of extreme magnetic fields.
Alison Heath recounts a story told to her by Sharon Noble, director of Citizens for Safe Technologies and founder of Stop Smart Meters BC. A school in Simcoe county installed wireless internet on their campus. Shortly after that, the children had heart attacks. She believes some were reported to be fatal.
Smart Meters are another major source of EMF radiation, and yet some people do not have the option to say no to Smart Meters being installed near their homes. There is currently a Human Rights Class Action Law Suit against that. Human Rights demand that the people be given protection; even electromagnetic hypersensitivity protection. “In this case,” Ms Heath states, “we are definitely not protected.”
In the end, the best electromagnetic hypersensitivity treatment is really to opt out of wireless. Ms Heath encourages people to return to ethernet cables, stop giving children cell phones, and refrain from using smart meters. She reiterates the Precautionary Principle; simply take precautions. “Protect yourself. Do what you can to be safe.”
Alison Heath will be hosting the EMF Summit – the first free online EMF event – and will be joined by Sharon Noble and Dr. Magda Havas, among others. She invites her viewers to take part in it as well. You can find her on her website http://longevityrescuer.com/, or learn more about the EMF Summit at http://emfsummit.com/.
Monday, July 21, 2014
Does Facebook make YOU miserable? Wasting time on the social network is linked to low self-esteem
Does Facebook make YOU miserable? Wasting time on the social network is linked to low self-esteem
- Researchers asked 300 Facebook users to undertake online tests
- The first asked participants to reveal how much time they spend on Facebook, before asking them to rate their mood
- The second asked participants to spend 20 minutes on the social network
- Both experiments found people felt worse about themselves after using Facebook because they did not feel it was a good use of their time
Next time you're in a bad mood, don’t turn to Facebook to cheer you up.
Research has revealed that the longer you spend procrastinating on the social networking site, the more miserable you will become.
This is because we recognise we're wasting our time on the site, and this lowers our self-esteem.
Researchers from University of Innsbruck in Austria asked 300 English and German Facebook users to take a series of tests. The first asked how much time they had spent on Facebook, and to rate their mood. The second asked some participants to spend 20 minutes on the social network
The research contradicts Facebook’s own controversial study, published last month, which revealed posts on the site can have a positive and negative effect.
LONELY PEOPLE MORE LIKELY TO OVERSHARE ON FACEBOOK
Australian researchers from Charles Sturt University in New South Wales, Australia studied the profiles of 608 female Facebook users.
According to the researchers, ‘half (308) were categorised as “connected” and the remaining 308 users were categorised as “lonely”; based on clearly stating this feeling in their latest wall posting.’
The study then monitored the publicly available aspects of the profile to see if there was a relationship between loneliness and self-disclosure.
Half of those who were categorised as lonely were more likely to include more personal information on their accounts.
This ranged from their relationship status to their address and phone number.
One in eight lonely users also listed their favourite book and film.
For the more recent experiment, a total of 300 English and German-speaking participants were asked by researchers from the University of Innsbruck to take two tests to see how Facebook affected their mood.
In the first, they were asked how much time they had spent on Facebook that day, before being asked to rate their mood.
The second study asked some of the participants to spend 20 minutes on Facebook doing typical things such as checking their news feed and updating their status.
A second group browsed the web, but did not use social networks, while a third was given no instructions.
All three groups were asked to rate how ‘meaningful’ their overall experience had been.
The findings revealed that in both experiments, people said they felt worse about themselves after using Facebook, because they did not feel it was a good use of their time.
Lead researcher Christina Sagioglou of the University of Innsbruck in Austria said: ‘The meaningfulness actually accounts for the mood effects.
A second group browsed the web, but not social networks, while a third was given no instructions. The findings revealed that all participants said they felt worse about themselves after using Facebook because they did not feel it was a good use of their time
‘It’s not surprising that if you do something you don’t consider very meaningful, you’re not in a good mood afterward.’
Previous studies have found Facebook can make people feel more jealous and lonely.
Australian researchers from Charles Sturt University in New South Wales discovered that female Facebook users who are categorised as lonely are more likely to include more personal information on their accounts.
This ranged from their relationship status, to their address and phone number, while one in eight lonely users also listed their favourite book and film.
Facebook’s own study was heavily criticized when it emerged the company manipulated the news feeds of 700,000 people in 2012 to see what would happen - without telling them first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)