Friday, June 08, 2012

1 in 3 Teens Admits to Texting While Driving

1 in 3 Teens Admits to Texting While Driving

THURSDAY, June 7 (HealthDay News) -- Although more teen drivers are buckling up and not driving drunk than in years past, another danger -- texting -- is posing a new threat, U.S. government research shows.
One in three high school students said they had texted or emailed while driving during the past month, says a research team from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
"Texting or emailing while driving can have deadly consequences that are entirely preventable,"Howell Wechsler, director of CDC's Division of Adolescent and School Health, said during a noon press conference Thursday. "So while we are pleased to see changes in many behaviors related to motor vehicle crashes, we are alarmed by some of the new findings, especially those involving distracted driving."
There was some very good news from the new report: Over the past 20 years there have been marked improvements among teens in terms of wearing seatbelts, not riding with drunk drivers and not driving drunk, Wechsler's team found.
"The most notable finding in this report is the significant reduction in risk behaviors related to motor vehicle crashes, which are the leading cause of death among youth in the United States," Wechsler said. "They account for more than one in three teen deaths every year."
From 1991 to 2011, the time span covered by the report, the number of high school students who said they "never or rarely" wore a seat belt dropped from 26 percent to only 8 percent.
Over the same period, the number of students who said they had recently ridden with a driver who had been drinking dropped from 40 percent to 24 percent. The number of teens who said they had been drinking while driving fell from 17 percent in 1997 to 8 percent in 2011, the report notes.
"These trends show that we are making great progress in helping our nation's youth make positive health choices," Wechsler said. "Over the past decade there has been a 44 percent drop in motor vehicle crash deaths in teens aged 13 to 19 years old."
But new distracting, potentially dangerous behaviors such as texting have also emerged. "For the first time, the report offers national data showing that the use of technology [such as cellphones] among youth is resulting in new risks," Wechsler said.
In addition, the report found that one in six teens had been bullied through email, chat rooms, instant messaging, websites or texting in the past year.
Other highlights of the report include:
  • In 2009, 19 percent of teens smoked; in 2011 it was 18 percent.
  • Marijuana use rose from 21 percent in 2009 to 23 percent in 2011.
  • More high school students smoke marijuana now than smoke cigarettes.
The data were collected by interviewing more than 15,000 high school students from around the nation. For the first time, data were collected using both landline phones and cellphones.
More information
To see the full report, visit the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Tuesday, June 05, 2012

Your environmental exposures might haunt your great-grandchildren

Your environmental exposures might haunt your great-grandchildren

In Australia there are increasing reports of unruly children and teenagers running amok, bullying classmates, attacking police, teachers, parents, etc, etc. No doubt this is because of a variety of reasons but I have wondered what possible role their increasing addiction to wireless technology, i.e., mobile phones. wi fi, etc. might have in their anti-social behaviour – and whether chemical exposures could also be a factor. For example, in the 1990′s the Swedish Union of Clerical and Technical Employees in Industry (SiF) had produced a number of publications on both chemical and EMF hazards in the modern workplace ( See: ). This was examined in far more detail in Gunni Nordstrom’s excellent book, The Invisible Disease, that chronicles the issue of chemical/EMR hazards in the workplace. (See: ). Evidence indicates that chemical exposure may increase susceptibility to EMR exposure. Perhaps EMR exposure also increases susceptibility to chemicals?

Research by the Karolinska Institute found that since 1972, when levels of Brominated Flame Retardants (related to PCBs) were virtually undetectable in human breast milk, dramatic annual increases have been measured. Much of this was apparently due to contaminated and recirculated air from outgassing electrical equipment in modern office buildings and from contamination in food. ( SiF, No Risk in the IT environment )
According to the Chapel Hill Consensus statement “the published scientific literature on human and animal exposure to low doses of BPA … reveals that human exposure to BPA is within the range that is predicted to be biologically active in over 95% of people sampled.”…/2007-0801bpaconsensus.pdf

So, we all are carrying around a potentially toxic load of chemicals in our bodies but it is not known what the effect of these chemicals will be for our health and longevity – or the legacy for our children.

Of importance here is the evidence that EMR exposure can cause leakage through the blood-brain barrier (BBB) – therefore allowing chemicals already circulating in the bloodstream to enter the brain and do cause damage on a neurological level.

Now consider the implications of the rat study findings by researchers at Washington State University on chemical exposures of rats and the effects on their descendants (below). It would be interesting to re-run the experiment but this time also expose a number of rats to both vin­clo­zolin and EMR to see what additional effect that might have on their offspring.

Don Maisch
May 23, 2012
Courtesy of Washington State University
and World Science staff

Sci­en­tists have found in­creased stress sen­si­ti­vity and dif­fer­ences in weight gain in rats whose an­ces­tors were ex­posed to a hor­mone-dis­rupt­ing chem­i­cal three genera­t­ions ear­li­er.

The re­search­ers ex­posed preg­nant rats to vin­clo­zolin, a pop­u­lar fruit and veg­e­ta­ble fun­gi­cide known to dis­rupt hor­mones. They then put the ro­dents’ great-grandpups through var­i­ous tests and found them more anx­ious, stress-sen­si­tive and prone to great­er ac­ti­vity in stress-related brain ar­eas than un­ex­posed rats’ de­scen­dants.

“We are now in the third hu­man genera­t­ion since the start of the chem­i­cal rev­o­lu­tion, since hu­mans have been ex­posed to these kinds of tox­ins,” said Da­vid Crews of the Uni­vers­ity of Tex­as at Aus­tin, one of the in­ves­ti­ga­tors. “This is the an­i­mal mod­el of that.”
The dif­fer­ences in weight gain seen in the study were in­tri­guing but re­quire fur­ther stu­dy, he added.

It seems clear that “the an­ces­tral ex­po­sure of your great grand­moth­er al­ters your brain de­vel­op­ment to then re­spond to stress dif­fer­ent­ly,” said Mi­chael Skin­ner of Wash­ing­ton State Uni­vers­ity, who worked with Crews. The find­ings are pub­lished in the lat­est is­sue of the jour­nal Pro­ceed­ings of the Na­t­ional Acad­e­my of Sci­ences.

The re­search­ers had pre­vi­ously found vin­clo­zolin ex­po­sure can ef­fect sub­se­quent genera­t­ions by af­fect­ing how genes are turned on and off, a pro­cess called epi­ge­net­ics. In that case, the ep­i­ge­net­ic in­her­it­ance al­tered how rats choose mates.

The new re­search goes fur­ther.

“How well you so­cial­ize or how your anx­i­e­ty lev­els re­spond to stress may be as much your an­ces­tral ep­i­ge­net­ic in­her­it­ance as your in­di­vid­ual early-life events,” Skin­ner said. This could ex­plain why some peo­ple suf­fer post-traumatic stress syn­drome while oth­ers don’t, he added.

“We have been see­ing real in­creases in men­tal dis­or­ders like au­tism and bi­po­lar dis­or­der,” said Crews. “It’s more than just a change in di­ag­nos­tics. The ques­tion is why? Is it be­cause we are liv­ing in a more frantic world, or be­cause we are liv­ing in a more frantic world and are re­sponding to that in a dif­fer­ent way be­cause we have been ex­posed? I fa­vor the lat­ter.”

Read the full story here.

Background to the Lilienfeld study and the “Moscow signal”:

Background to the Lilienfeld study and the “Moscow signal”:

In the early 1960s it was discovered that from approximately November 1962 the Soviets had been beaming highly focused microwaves directly into the US Embassy in Moscow at an estimated power density that ranged from .005 mW/cm2 to .018 mW/cm2.112 

Averaged measurements determined that although the intensity reaching the Embassy was approximately 500 times less than the US standard for occupational exposure, it was twice the highest limit allowed in the Soviet standard.This created a quandary for the US, for if they truly believed their thermally-based 10 mW/cm2 standard was safe they could hardly conclude that the level of microwaves at their Embassy was undermining the health of the Embassy staff. Concerns were raised about the purpose of irradiation of the Embassy. Was it eavesdropping or a more sinister attack on the health of the employees? An initial study was done on the Moscow personnel in 1967 that examined a group of 43 workers, (37 exposed and 7 not exposed). They were tested for abnormalities in chromosomes and 20 out of the 37 were above the normal range among the exposed, compared to 2/7 among the non-exposed. In the final report the scientists urged a repeat and follow-up study which was clinically indicated for 18 persons, but was not undertaken by the end of the contract period, June 30, 1969. The evidence of chromosome changes was strong enough to have triggered clinical guidelines that would have recommended ceasing reproductive activity until the condition had improved. At a Superpower summit in June 1967 the irradiation of the Moscow Embassy was the subject of a confidential exchange between US President Lyndon Johnson and Soviet Prime Minister Alexi Kosygin. Johnson asked that the Soviet Union stop irradiating its Moscow Embassy with microwaves and harming the health of American citizens. In 1966 a covert study, called Project Pandora, was commenced to study the possible effects on health from the microwave irradiation of the Moscow Embassy staff, who were not told the true reason for the investigation. In a related study, Project Bizarre, a primate was exposed to microwaves at half that permitted by the US standard. The findings of this study concluded, “[t]here is no question that penetration of the central nervous system has been achieved, either directly or indirectly into that portion of the brain concerned with the changes in work functions”.

A haematologic study by J & S Tonascia in 1976 found highly significant differences between Moscow Embassy employees and other foreign service staff (control group). White blood cell counts were much higher in the Moscow staff as well as several other significant changes noted over time. These results were never published, but obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. At this time there was a US Congressional radiation inquiry underway and the Department of Defense (DoD) was arguing that the US RF/MW Standard was already strict enough. They argued that there was no scientific evidence for the Soviet Standard being set at a level one thousand times lower than the US standard.
The Moscow Embassy employees and dependants were studied for possible health effects of microwave irradiation by a team from John Hopkins University, under the direction of epidemiologist Professor Abraham Lilienfeld. Dr Lilienfeld noted that the study group was quite small and that the follow-up time too short to generally identify significant health effects such as cancer. He recommended that continued health status surveillance should be carried out, but this was not done. The incidence of sickness and death were compared with employees & dependents in other Eastern European embassies, and with the average US rates. The incidence of multiple-site cancers was far more frequent in the Moscow Embassy group than in any other population studied. It was noted that while multiple-site cancers are characteristic of older populations, the Moscow Embassy group was relatively young. According to Goldsmith, concerns of the John Hopkins team were “downgraded” by the state department and the wording of the team report altered to lessen its impact. Lilienfeld strongly recommended that additional follow up studies be undertaken since the latency periods for some types of cancer had been insufficient for cancer to occur, if indeed it were to result from microwave exposure. Nevertheless, according to Goldsmith, the overall findings were consistent with excess cancer incidence both in the Moscow Embassy cohort and in the other Eastern European embassy personnel.Data on exposure and occurrence of some cases of cancer were withheld from Professor Lilienfeld until after his report was completed and it was too late to include in the results. Reviews of the work done by contract investigators were interpreted as inconclusive because the State Department had failed to complete the necessary follow-up work which was recommended by the Lilienfeld team.


From The Procrustean Approach, pp. 105 – 107
From Iris Atzmon, June 1, 2012:

- Prof. John R. Goldsmith, M.D., M.P.H.

Epidemiology and Health Services Evaluation Unit,
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653, 84105 Beer-Sheva, Israel

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 5 (1995), 92-4. Introduction

Professional interaction over fifteen years between myself, an epidemiologist, and a lawyer started in 1974, when we were both in Washington, evaluating environmental health problems. The lawyer, recently disappointed with the outcome of a case which hinged on the testimony of an epidemiologist, began a dialogue about the criteria for use of probabilities in the scientific and judicial system. We agreed on the importance of making clear these differences, and he documented them in an article.

These differences can be misused in both legal and scientific procedures, under circumstances in which the failure to demonstrate conventional statistical significance (scientifically) is erroneously interpreted as meaning that preventing exposure would not be a reasonable public health measure.

When the lawyer started his private practice he sought expert epidemiological advice in the case of foreign service workers with cancer who had been exposed to microwave radiation in the US Embassy in Moscow.

The trail then led to a major investigation of health risks of Embassy staff by a leading U.S. epidemiologist. The report of this study was said to be negative but actually had some disturbing findings. The trail took a sharp turn when the lawyer provided me copies of documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, which indicated persistent cover-up and deliberate distortions of views of highly regarded scientists with respect to risks from these exposures. A published report on personnel risks from radar exposure in the U.S. Navy diluted the experience of increased leukemia in an exposed group with the low rates in a less exposed group, bringing down likelihood of a significant result and concluding that no effect occurred.

The ethical issues concern whether a scientist who inadvertently finds this evidence should disclose it, in light of security considerations among other matters. The trail, in this presentation, ends with an application of the legal use of probability in interpreting epidemiological evidence on the central scientific issue, the possible health risks from microwave radiation.


Read the full story here.

A call to act on the IARC ruling on cell phone radiation

A call to act on the IARC ruling on cell phone radiation

From Devra Davis, The Environmental Health Trust:

One year ago, advisors to International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organization (WHO) pronounced radiation from cellphones a “possible human carcinogen”—a category that includes diesel exhaust, chloroform, jet fuel, lead and DDT.

So what has happened since then? Many tech-savvy nations have stepped up efforts to issue warnings. Health Canada posted a notice about the value of using headsets and speakerphone, protecting children and the pregnant abdomen, keeping phones off the body and calls short, and avoiding use when signals are weak. France and Turkey have banned advertising with and for young children. The Israeli health, environment and labor ministries created a new national institute to study the issue, required that all phones be sold with headsets and are pondering warning labels on all phones and advertising.
At the federal level in the U.S., the General Accountability Office is expected to release what will be its fourth declaration (since 1993) on the need for more research on the health impacts of these microwave radiating devices—sidestepping altogether the appalling lack of allocation of funds for major research, training and monitoring.

At the local level, draft advisories giving people the right to know that cellphones are basically two-way microwave radiating radios that should not be held next to the brain and body now sit in governments from California to Maine. Industry has sued San Francisco—challenging the city’s simple Right-To-Know law that informs people before they make a purchase about how to practice safe cellphone use.

U.S. inaction on cellphones is no accident, but the result of well-funded media efforts that have overwhelmed understaffed regulatory agencies. In 1994, when scientists Henry Lai and V. J. Singh found that low levels of pulsed, cellphone-like radiation appeared to damage brain cells, industry responded by attacking the science, the scientists and those who would fund them. An industry memo sent to public relations firms at the time explained—“war-game the science.”

Just as happened with tobacco, science becomes a form of public relations. Calling for more research is easy so long as no major funds are set aside to see that this gets done and what limited studies are conducted are led by those whose concerns with sustaining their own research are paramount. As one industry memo counseled, “Doubt is our product.”

Some two decades later, American confusion reigns about cellphone safety. Ignoring new virus-based cybersecurity threats or long term health issues from wireless communications, the White House has just mandated that all federal agencies make information available on mobile devices. The assumption that cellphones must be safe is fueled by an industry war chest of a quarter of a billion dollar emergency public relations fund aimed at attacking the WHO and any studies suggesting phones could be a problem.
In fact, brain cancer is hardly the only health issue of concern linked to cellphone radiation. Controlled studies in rabbits, mice and rats find that pulsed digital signals from today’s smartphones damage sperm, brain, liver, eyes and skin of exposed offspring, and impair memory and behavior. According to independent studies at the Cleveland Clinic and Australia’s national research center, men who use cellphones four hours per day have about half the normal count and three times more damage to their sperm’s DNA than those with much less use. Other experimental work from Turkey concludes that such exposures produce offspring with smaller brains and fewer brain cells.

Understanding that direct cellphone and other wireless radiation should be controlled and reduced has already created phenomenal business opportunities. While the market is flooded with magical devices that falsely claim to block radiation, there are a number of effective practical tools at hand. Although banned by iPhone, Tawkon is an app that allows smartphones to sense and flash a red light when releasing levels of radiation that exceed FCC limits. Pong Research produces cases for smartphones and tablets that deflect some microwave radiation while also extending battery life.

IARC’s evaluation of cellphone radiation should allow us to prevent harm rather than wait for it to happen. The global effort to control tobacco only started after massive epidemics of lung cancer became undeniable. If we await such evidence with cellphones, our grandchildren may face an entirely avoidable public health crisis.

Devra Lee Davis, PhD, MPH, is an award-winning scientist and writer, president of Environmental Health Trust (, and the author of Disconnect—The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation (Dutton, 2010).

Editor’s note: For more information, contact

Also see:

Read the full story here.

More on the pursuit of Gro Brundtland by Michael Repacholi

More on the pursuit of Gro Brundtland by Michael Repacholi

Back in April of this year a number of messages on this list examined Michael Repacholi’s attack on the former Head of the WHO, Gro Harlem Brundtland. At that time a lengthy article by Thomas Ergo was published in the Norwegian news magazine, PLOT.

Just released this week is an authorized English translation on the PLOT article by Henrik Eiriksson.

Highly recommended reading!

From Henrik Eiriksson,

The Laughing stock – and the pursuit of Gro Written by Thomas Ergo.
Published april 2012 in Norwegian newsmagazine PLOT, issue #7.
”Is there a cell phone switched-on in this room?”. Gro Harlem Brundtland looked straight at the journalist. They were in an office in the Directorate of Health in Oslo in march 2002. The former Prime Minister, now Director-General of the World Health Organisation and with permanent residency in Geneva, was on a quick visit. On that occasion, the 62-year old was to be interviewed by the newspaper Dagbladet about the war against the tobacco industry. But that day, Gro was up against a completely different industry. The things she said would cause international attention. The journalist had become aware of rumors that the WHO boss was allergic to radiation. Gro confirmed it. “It’s not the sound, but the waves I react to. And the sensitivity has become so severe that I react to mobile phones closer than approx. four metres” Gro said.

Initially she had felt a strong heating around the ear. “But the symptoms progressed into nausea and headaches each time I talked on a cell phone”. And now she could sense that a cell phone was switched on in the room. The journalists phone was off. The newspaper photographer snatched his phone out of his jacket. Also switched off… No! wait a minute. It was just muted. The phone was still switched on.

Gro had attempted to cut down on mobile phone conversations. That didn’t help. Everyone working at the WHO in 2002 had mobiles. She was surrounded. “To avoid suspicion of hysteria”, Gro said. “Just so that no one should think that this was something I imagined, I performed many tests: I had people come into my office with a cell phone hidden in a purse or pocket. Without my knowledge of it being switched on or off, we tested how it affected me. I have always reacted whenever the phone has been switched on. So there is no doubt.”. Therefore, mobile phones were banned around Gro. Norways own “mother”, the great former prime minister and WHO’s top chief was electro-hypersensitive.

Sitting in one of the hundreds of offices in the WHO headquarters in Geneva was the 57-year old Australian Michael Repacholi. He could not believe what he was reading. News of Gro’s electro-hypersensitivity went around the world. Repacholi was the architect behind the recommended exposure guidelines that guaranteed the world’s population that mobile phone radiation is harmless. He was the leader of WHO’s – and the world’s – largest research project on cell phones and health. His message was always: No health effects have been proven. No reason to worry. No reason to issue any warnings.


If you want to download it in other formats, please go here and select “File” -> “Download as”:

If you redistribute the article, please clearly credit as writer: Thomas Ergo, publisher: PLOT newsmagazine, issue #7.

Very best,

Read the full story here.

Journalist investigates Brundtlands EHS, WHO, Repacholi and NRPA

Journalist investigates Brundtlands EHS, WHO, Repacholi and NRPA has been hard at work translating an article by award-winning Norwegian investigative journalist Thomas Ergo about what really happened behind the scene at Repacholi's WHO EMF project and the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority after Gro Harlem Brundtland declared that she is EHS.

The 23 page article was published in acclaimed PLOT newsmagazine in april. The translation has been approved for release by PLOT's editor-in-chief. It's a recommended read. Enjoy.

Very best,

Call for donations: Evaluation of new epidemiological data for assessing the risk of brain tumours from mobile phone radiation

Call for donations: Evaluation of new epidemiological data for assessing the risk of brain tumours from mobile phone radiation
‘Pandora - Foundation for independent research’, ‘Diagnose-Funk - Environmental and consumer-rights organization for the protection from electromagnetic fields and radiation’ and ‘Competence Initiative - for the Protection of Mankind, the Environment and Democracy’jointly call for donations in order to support Prof. Lennart Hardell’s research project at the Department of Oncology of the University Hospital of Örebro, Sweden.
Prof. Hardell made significant contributions to the conclusion of WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in May 2011 that radiofrequency radiation is "possibly carcinogenic" to humans with his epidemiological studies. This is the reason why aggressive attempts are being made in the international arena to challenge his research data. Since industry and government refuse to provide funds for his ongoing research, he is helpless to defend himself through continuing his research.

Hardell’s grant application ( ) submitted to Pandora Foundation shows that a voluminous set of data is at his disposal for investigation into the use of mobile phones by a large number of men and women whose brain tumours were diagnosed in Sweden between 2007 and 2009. The evaluation of these data will add considerably to the current state of knowledge, because compared to any other study, the exposure time to mobile phone radiation is several years longer, and, therefore, creates  a more reliable basis for risk assessment.

In his application to the Pandora Foundation, Hardell indicates costs of about 51.000 Euro for his research project. Details are provided in the project description. For two years now, he has tried to get together this amount of money, which is comparably small for research projects of this kind. But he has not had success. Government and industry obviously agree in their efforts that their  commercial plans should not be hampered through scientific findings enforcing that more weight is given to radiation protection of people than hitherto has been considered necessary.

Pandora Foundation, Diagnose-Funk ( and Competence Initiative ( consider it the best and wisest form of protest against such a profit based policy, if independent scientists and concerned citizens get up the fortitude to take their fate in their own hands. We intend to raise money on our own for a research project suitable to reveal threats to mankind and nature before the aftermath is irreparable. We informed Hardell that we are confident to be able to provide the necessary funds for his project within the next 6 months. Hardell assured us that he will move forward with his research, when about on third of the means will be available. Should you wish to learn more about the reasons of our activities, please read  (an English version will follow soon).

We kindly ask you to support Prof. Hardell`s research according to your possibilities:
Pandora – Stiftung / Deutsche Bank Berlin / Konto  4 26 16 99 00 / BLZ 100 700 00           
Pandora – Stiftung / Deutsche Bank Berlin / IBAN: DE18100700000426169900 / BIC: DEUTDEBBXXX
Keyword Hardell

According to Article 10 of the German Income Tax Act the Pandora Foundation is entitled to issue tax-deductible receipts for donations supporting its scientific purposes.
The three organization guarantee that the money received under the keyword ‘Hardell’ will be transferred to the applicant without any deduction.

More informations:   |

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 7187 (20120601) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

Wifi, EMFs : Electrosensitivity (ES, EHS) physiologically explained at last

Wifi, EMFs : Electrosensitivity (ES, EHS) physiologically explained at last 

In 2007, a number of libraries employees in Paris complained about headaches, nausea... right after massive installation of wifi emitters in their offices. This led to a fight between Paris' city hall and worker unions (giving way to the set up of a citizen conference on proliferation of EMFs in Paris)

At French National Library BNF, and more recently in Paris subway transport company RATP, it is in the same deleterious conditions that the debate takes place between unions and corporations, relative to questions about health implications at work relative to the in-flow of those new wireless technologies in businesses. Everyone in this file has now access to a first medical answer relative to intolerance to EMFs published in Canadian Newspaper " La Maison du 21ème Siècle"

French researchers have just shown that Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) does notably modify blood and grain physiology in ES people, and that the impact on those biological markers rises and falls with intensity of the exposure. "We do know with certainty that Electrohypersensitivity is not psychosomatic", tells us Oncologist Pr. Belpomme in a telephone interview. "EMFs do trigger major effects in the brain. The most important effect is the opening of the blood-brain barrier. This allows mercury, organochlorates and other toxics to pervade through the brain, where they cause diverse ailments and neurodegenerative diseases." Pr Belpomme records having 20 new patients per week.

An Oncology Professor at Paris Descartes University, Pr. Belpomme is president of the Association for Therapeutic Research Against Cancer (french acronym ARTAC,, which shifted to cancer prevention from 2004 on. Since may 2008, his team studies what he named Electromagnetic Fields Intolerance Syndrom (french acronym SICEM). "I have 450 patients and I see up to 20 new patients each week, including children with headaches, memory loss, attention or language troubles. We have the biggest cluster in Europe of electrosensitive patients. This is a major problem in public health."

ES, or SICEM, is an extreme reaction to fairly low exposure levels to electric and magnetic fields of low frequency (50-60Hz) emitted by electric wires and electrical appartus, up to 10MHz or 300GHz radiofrequencies, including microwaves, of wireless devices and their antennaes. This syndrome is recognized in Sweden as a handicap giving way to diverse modifications of the environment by protecting devices that can be state-subsidized to lower exposures.

Most sensitive cases are wrongly imputed to psychiatry : their symptoms (cardiovascular, dermatological, neurological and muscular) are so strong they have to protect themselves with special clothing, paints, metal shieldings, ideally connected to the electrical ground. Others move to forests, caves, and remote places, far away from EMF emissions.

Pr. Belpomme's team put up a diagnosis method based on blood tests and a special type of electroencephalogram (pulsed doppler echographics) which enables them to visualize blood flows in the brain. "Those kind of patients are sure to have troubles in brain vascularization", says the oncologist.

Besides, biological tests demonstrates that 30% have elevated histamine rates, 50% have elevated rate of stress proteins, most of them have a very low rate of melatonin (anticancer hormone), and 30% have antibodies and protein rates which indicates a thermal shock and speak for brain suffering." he adds that half of his patients also develop hypersensitivity to man-made chemicals, both syndromes sharing common brain anomalies.

The oncologist explained us there were 3 distinct levels of sensitivity to pollutants. At first, there is intolerance, triggered by pollutants polymorphism. "This means we are all different. For instance, 30% of the general population has the biggest risk of contracting cancer." Then lies susceptibility, a factor demonstrated by his Swedish colleague Lennard Hardell who observed 16 families with bigger ES because of heredity. There also are active susceptibility factors "such as dental amalgams which act up as antennas" catching the waves. Then, ES manifests in two steps : "the first step is that of induction with overexposure to a specific frequency of EMFs, either acute or chronic way, such as speaking on a mobile phone for 20 minutes a day, says Pr. Belpomme. The first signs of hypersensitivity are pain and a feeling of heat in the ear. The second step is constitution of the disease. Then sensitivity builds up and the person becomes intolerant to all frequences."

The scientific council of ARTAC, a team made of experimented researchers, is presided by Dr. Luc Montagnier, co-Nobel Prize 2008 for discovering AIDS causing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). ARTAC research coordinator, nutrition specialist Dr Philippe Irigaray, is one of the 5 international experts to have been recently invited by Health Research Funds in Quebec and who selected the best research project in Environmental cancer prevention. Philippe Irigaray underlines that the human brain contains magnetosomes, iron oxides which behave like magnets. ES could depend on their quantity, which varies from person to person.

Those researchers are nowadays preparing 5 articles on electrosensitivity. "This requires a lot of time, says Pr. Dominique Belpomme. They will be published in one year or two." But independent and immediate action is required to reduce overexposure of people to EMFs, adds he. In France alone, an estimates gives 5% of people being electrosensitive, and the proportion rises up with the spreading of wireless technologies. "Studies show that 10 to 50% of population will face becoming very intolerant to EMFs in the next 25 to 50 years. Two patients of mine have been hit by multiple sclerosis triggered by overuse of cell phones, 3 cases of breast cancer, among which 2 relapses after overexposure to EMFs, daily use of computers - and proof is building up against autism and Alzheimer's disease, which seem to be triggered with higher risk than cancer by EMF exposure. Causality is really possible."

Fortunately, this practitioner does provide relief to patients as he administrates them nervous system tonics and helps blood brain barrier close down with antihistaminics. According to World Health Organization (WHO), there is no established link. In 2005, WHO claimed that ES symptoms could be psychosomatic or linked to other causes (bad vision, poor air quality, poor ergonomics, etc...) "There is no such thing as clear diagnosis criteria to this health problem, neither is there any scientific basis permitting to connect ES symptoms to EMF exposure (...)Well controlled studies in double-blind showed that those symptoms were not correlated to EMF exposure." To Pr. Dominique Belpomme, this is utter nonsense. "This is a political backwardness which shows nothing of scientific nature. WHO will have to revise its judgment in the upcoming months. This is societal denial which doesn't take into account nowadays knowledge which permanently builds up."

According to this oncologist, the cause-consequence link between EMF fields and leukemia is no longer to be doubted. "When doses shoots up, leukemia shoots up accordingly. Dozens of toxicological lab studies show that in the most obvious way, in vivo and in vitro."

Ontarian Researcher Magda Havas, from Trent University, claims that negative results to ES testings are compromised by major flaws "Researchers would presume that reactions are instant albeit very often there is a backlash delay. People are not instantly reactive electrical switches. Those studies erroneously infer that if nothing can be felt, then it shouldn't be harmful. We do very well know that you cannot detect the taste of arsenic, lead, DDT, asbestos ; yet all of those are toxics."

Translation courtesy Emilie Paniagua from Robin des Toits french national EMF and Health association.

Swedish Magazine New Technique discloses hole in the firewall Fecyhing/Ahlobom and Mobile phone industry

Swedish Magazine New Technique discloses hole in the firewall Fecyhing/Ahlobom and Mobile phone industry

Prof Anders Ahlbom: "we are totally independent."
google translation (source below)

Swedish research on cell phone radiation is financed by industry. To ensure independent researchers Vinnova has gone in as an intermediary. But new technology could prove that this "firewall" deficiencies. Relations between industry and researchers reported not set out herein. Maria Feychting, professor of epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute, KI, was recently Vice President of the Commission ICNIRP, International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, which sets limits on cell phone radiation and other electromagnetic fields.
While she partially funded his research into health and mobile phones via the telecom industry, which she openly recognizes in his jävsdeklaration to ICNIRP. TeliaSonera, Ericsson and Telenor contributes 50 percent of the cost for the Swedish part of the research project Cosmos (with over 50 000 mobile subscribers), now about 7 million.
Maria Feychting sees no conflict in leading Icnirps activities while she receives industry funding.
- I do not think there is a problem because funds channeled through third parties acting firewall between our researchers and industry, ensuring our independence, she says.
But Ny Teknik's audit shows that the industry and scientists first discuss together about the funding and then turn to Vinnova and request authority to act an intermediary.
Vinnova officer Pontus von Bahr stated that the parties came to the former Director-General Per Eriksson with the arrangement.
In this context, established a so-called Firewall Agreement 2007, which will protect researchers from "undue influence" of mobile stakeholders.
According to Christer Törnevik, research area manager at Ericsson, Ericsson began and scientists to meet 2005th
- Before the contract was written with Vinnova, we asked, however, some quality-related issues, and suggested that certain quality criteria should be included in the contract. It is normal to have the opportunity to give our input and comments on the design of studies, he said.
Ericsson has proposed inter alia an international reference and the number of survey persons would be at least 25 000, he says.
Vinnova has not had any insight into the informal contacts that occurred when the firewall agreement is in force.
Despite the wording of the agreement that it will "ensure that all links" between companies and researchers "are transparent" do not ask Vinnova any specific reports of meetings.
The Authority's list of the file are no records of such meetings.
People from Ericsson Research have sometimes met with KI scientists since Cosmos project commenced in 2007. These meetings have been continued funding and technical information, says Christer Törnevik
According to Maria Feychting, she has participated in meetings with the companies in 2006, 2009 and 2011, which among other things, been the companies' interests to contribute funds.
Firewall deal was until 2009. After signing a contract extension for 2010. Since the agreement has ended.
Now scientists boxes again funding from industry.
The project manager for Cosmos, Anders Ahlbom, professor of epidemiology at the Karolinska Institutet, sent October 6, 2011 an email directly to Ericsson: one eleven-page application with project and budget plan for 2012 to 2014. He writes in the email that funding requires a firewall agreement "preferably by Vinnova."
The researchers' request for funding will, according to Anders Ahlbom, later sent to Vinnova.
- I can only say that this is normal. We have a first discussion on the study itself, I see nothing strange about it, says Christer Törnevik.
Tommy Ljunggren, head of systems development in mobile, TeliaSonera, says, however:
- It's a bit strange, I do not know why but we have received an application to us directly and not through Vinnova, he says.
The Company reserves its position until it receives an application from Vinnova.
Anders Ahlbom:
- It may seem conspiratorial and wonder that we have informal contacts with industry, but we are totally independent. My understanding is that the telecom industry to contribute funding.
KI researchers Anders Ahlbom, above, and Maria Feychting, right, drives the Swedish part of the mobile research Cosmos. Anders Ahlbom's integrity as a scientist was questioned last year by a working group of the UN's cancer research agency IARC. Maria Feychting alone in Icnirps Commissioners about getting research funds from the telecom industry. Other ICNIRP members have little or no industry connections.

Cosmosstudien följer mobilanvändare i fem länder, under 25 års tid. Foto: Jörgen Appelgren

Strålforskare kringgår avtalet om oberoende

Av: Monica Kleja
Publicerad idag, 08:50 2 kommentarer

Svensk forskning om mobilstrålning finansieras av industrin. För att säkra forskarnas oberoende har Vinnova gått in som mellanhand. Men Ny Teknik kan visa att denna ”brandvägg” brister. Kontakter mellan industrin och forskarna rapporteras inte som avtalet föreskriver.

The two-perspective risk assessment system in Europe - World health change possibly linked to electromagnetic fields


This is the IEMFA EMF presentation held on the Madrid congress "
Risks for Public Health & the Environment"The two-perspective risk assessment system in Europe - World health change possibly linked to electromagnetic fields

Main context of the conference was that current methods and institutions for assessing environmental-health risks are not able to cope with complexities and uncertainties. Also scientific concepts and paradigms are requested that are independent from the interests and influence of the promoters of technologies. In line, it is recommended not to restrict risk assessment to closed networks of narrow elites, but to open up assessment and management of risks to wider groups of stakeholders. Also a plead is made to bring together the different types of knowledge existing in different networks.
The Goals of the Conference were as follows:
1) Increase public and political awareness of social, economic and environmental risks of current and new technologies and discuss effective means for e.g. technology and risk assessments, product approvals, and liability schemes.

2) Provide a forum for open public debate where experts from different fields can address the following questions and issues:
- What are the public health and environment risks of technologies such as modern biotechnology, nanotechnology, electromagnetic fields, and novel chemicals?
- What are the private and societal needs that are addressed by these technologies?
- Which are the current policies and procedures for shaping and assessing these technologies?
- Which are the main barriers to avoiding or minimizing risks and how can they be overcome?
- How can the precautionary principle be best applied?
- Why is there a lack of comprehensive and strong policies and institutions that could better support public interests?
- How can the marginalization of independent research, neglect of its results, and the undue influence of vested interests that inhibit change for the public good be overcome?

3) Create an Action Plan with concrete and realistic activities to support the changes needed, including changes in scientific paradigms and practices.and in the control of technological choices.

Organised by: The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), The European Environment Agency (EEA), The Health Defense Organisation (HDO), The Cátedra-Universidad-Empresa-Sindicato.
More information about the congress

American Academy of Environmental Medicine
Calls for Immediate Caution regarding Smart Meter Installation...Cites Human Health Impacts of Chronic Exposure to Radiofrequency (RF)

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has released its latest position paper on electromagnetic field (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) health effects calling for immediate caution regarding smart meter installations. Citing several peer-reviewed scientific studies, the AAEM concludes that "significant harmful biological effects occur from non-thermal RF exposure" showing causality. "A more thorough review of technological options to achieve society's worthwhile communications and business objectives must be conducted to protect human health and wellbeing," stated Dr. William J. Rea, a member of the AAEM and former thoracic surgeon. "By continuing to layer more and more wireless communication within our communities, we are setting the stage for widespread disease."

The AAEM also expresses concern regarding significant, but poorly understood quantum field health effects of EMF and RF. "More independent research is needed to assess the safety of 'Smart Meter' technology," said Dr. Amy Dean, board certified internist and President-Elect of the AAEM. "Patients are reporting to physicians the development of symptoms and adverse health effects after smart meters are installed on their homes. Immediate action is necessary to protect the public's health. Our research shows that chronic RF and EMF exposure can be very harmful."

Dr. William J. Rea, past president of AAEM, and a long time researcher on the effects of EMFs on the human body, says, "Technological advances must be assessed for harmful effects in order to protect society from the ravages of end-stage disease like cancer, heart disease, brain dysfunction, respiratory distress, and fibromyalgia. EMF and wireless technology are the latest innovations to challenge the physician whose goal is to help patients and prevent disease."
The AAEM calls for: 
==> Immediate caution regarding "Smart Meter" installation due to potentially harmful RF exposure
==> Accommodation for health considerations regarding EMF and RF exposure, including exposure to wireless "Smart Meter" technology
==> Independent studies to further understand health effects from EMF and RF exposure
==> Use of safer technology, including for "Smart Meters," such as hard-wiring, fiber optics or other non-harmful methods of data transmission
==> Independent studies to further understand the health effects from EMF and RF exposures
==> Recognition that electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a growing problem worldwide
==> Consideration and independent research regarding the quantum effects of EMF and RF on human health
==> Understanding and control of this electrical environmental bombardment for the protection of society

The AAEM's position paper on electromagnetic and radiofrequency fields can be found at:
AAEM is an international association of physicians and other professionals dedicated to addressing the clinical aspects of environmental health.
More information is available at
SOURCE: American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)

Kind regards,
International EMF Alliance
Alex Swinkels, NetherlandsBoard Member