Are Bluetooth devices really safer than using a cell phone?

Are Bluetooth devices really safer than using a cell phone?

August 10, 2012 in -Mailing List, Cell phone news by EMFacts

From Cindy Sage on the supposed safety of Bluetooth devices:

People should realize that Bluetooth devices that fit in or around the ear typically radiate at 0.23 watts per kilogram (W/Kg). Go into any AT&T wireless store and ask for the SAR on Bluetooth devices. Or check any SAR values website that shows cell phone SAR levels, and you’ll find the Bluetooth devices are actually worse than some of the low-SAR cell phones.

This level of 0.23 W/Kg is ten to 100 times higher than the RF exposure levels shown to make the blood-brain barrier pathologically leaky, allowing toxins and toxic molecules to cross the BBB. This is reported by Salford, Persson, NIttby and Schirmacher among others – to cause neuron death at 0.012 to 0.002 W/Kg.

Multiple studies have reported that as short as a single, two-hour exposure to cell phone radiation will result in pathological leakage of the blood-brain barrier. The effect occurs immediately, and is still seen at 14 days and at 50 days post-exposure at only 0.012 W/Kg to 0.002 W/Kg. The lowest exposure SARs are worse than the higher SAR exposures (Nittby et al, 2009). These studies show neuron death (brain cells) at SARs of only 0.012 W/Kg. Bluetooth devices are worn for hours at a time, in some cases – all day long. So, it is reasonable to conclude that a device which radiates at a higher intensity than some cell phones that are still risky in terms of SAR, worn for more hours than a cell phone is typically used – would not be a good idea to promote.

Cindy Sage

http://www.emfacts.com/2012/08/are-bluetooth-devices-really-safer-than-using-a-cell-phone/

Are cellphone towers near your home dangerous for you?

Are cellphone towers near your home dangerous for you?

Published On: July 28, 2012 | Duration: 18 min, 12 sec

After the Delhi High Court tells the government to look into the effects of cellphone tower radiation on citizens, we ask whether radiation from cell towers cause serious health issues.

San Francisco faces wireless industry in court over radiation warnings

San Francisco faces wireless industry in court over radiation warnings

The city's law requiring cell phone retailers to disclose possible health risks from cell phone radiation will have an important day in court today.

by Marguerite Reardon

  August 9, 2012 12:00 AM PDT

The City of San Francisco will face off in court with the wireless industry today in a hearing that may determine if the local government will be allowed to force retailers selling cell phones within city limits to disclose possible health risks to consumers before they buy mobile devices.

In 2010, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and then-mayor Gavin Newsom approved legislation that would require manufacturers to provide information about the potential health risks associated with using cell phones.

Specifically, the ordinance required retailers to put up posters in stores that sell cell phones warning of potential risks. It also required that a sticker be affixed on the outside of cell phone packaging providing information about the SAR level, a specific absorption rate at a level defined by the Federal Communications Commission, and a fact sheet that offered more information about the potential risks of using cell phones as well as information about how to reduce exposure.

The CTIA, the wireless lobbying association representing handset makers and cell phone carriers, sued the city, arguing that these requirements violate the industry's First Amendment rights and also pre-empt the federal standard set by the FCC that ensures cell phone safety.

In October, U.S. District Judge William Alsup struck down the city's sticker and poster requirements. But he upheld the city's right to distribute "fact sheets" about potential risks, provided the city tone down rhetoric.

The CTIA is appealing this decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals, and it's asking for an injunction against issuing the "fact sheet." Meanwhile, the city, which in Judge Alsup's judgment lost two of the three warning methods in the original ordinance, is also appealing the former decision, asking the three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals to re-instate the other pieces of the ordinance.

Related stories

• U.S. report: FCC's cell phone radiation guidelines outdated
• CTIA weighs challenge to revised SF cell phone law
• SF tries again with cell phone radiation law

The case is significant in the ongoing battle between those who believe that low levels of radiation from long-term cell phone use can be hazardous and those who say that cell phone use is not at all dangerous. And if the city prevails in court, it could pave the way for other state and local governments to pass similar legislation of their own. And it may bolster the chances of a new federal law.

Earlier this week, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced a bill called The Cell Phone Right to Know Act that would put warning labels on cell phones and require the Environmental Protection Agency to update the RF energy absorption rates. The bill also calls for more research to be conducted on the potential health risks.

A CTIA representative said the association hasn't issued a formal statement on the legislation yet. But he did say that the CTIA supports more research being conducted. That said, the CTIA views requiring labels or warnings on devices an infringement of the First Amendment.

"The government can't compel a private party to express an opinion that it disagrees with," said Andrew McBride, an attorney with the Washington, D.C. firm Wiley Rein LLP, who will argue the CTIA's case in front of the U.S. Appeals Court today.

He added that the information the city wants to provide to cell phone consumers is opinion and not fact.

To be fair, the science on the issue of whether cell phones are harmful is conflicting. Some research suggests there are legitimate health concerns while other studies conclude there is no cause and effect between cell phone use and cancer or any other health issues. Still, in spite of the conflicting information, the World Health Organization a year ago called cell phone radiation a "carcinogenic hazard," putting it in the same category as other possible carcinogens like lead and exhaust from gasoline.

On Tuesday the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a report calling for the FCC, which has oversight of cell phones, to revise its standards. The agency reviewed several studies and concluded that the FCC's standards, which were established in 1996, may be out of date.

"The FCC energy exposure limit may not reflect the latest research, and testing requirements may not identify maximum exposure in all possible usage conditions," the GAO report said.

The FCC's current standard looks at what's called specific absorption rate or SAR. This rate measures the rate at which radio frequencies are absorbed by a section of tissue. The FCC's current SAR limit is a maximum of 1.6 watts per kilogram for any wireless device sold in the U.S.

Vince Chhabria, a deputy city attorney for San Francisco, who will argue the city's position in court, said that the GAO's report supports the city's argument that warnings are needed because of the lingering concerns about the long-term effects of cell phone radiation exposure.

"This report confirms what was already obvious," he said. "New information keeps coming up about the relationship between cell phone use and health risks, such as cancer. And we think the public is better served if they're given the opportunity to take a closer look at this new information."

But the CTIA actually thinks that the GAO report may help its argument. The GAO report states that there is no evidence to date that proves cell phone use is a risk to consumers' health. And the report suggests that the U.S. align its standards with standards used in Europe, which could actually raise the exposure level or SAR higher than where it it is today.

Meanwhile, the FCC said in June that it's looking at revising the standard anyway. And the agency is currently preparing to take public comment on the issue.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57489647-94/san-francisco-faces-wireless-industry-in-court-over-radiation-warnings/

Barbara Makota: Proof of physical harm by wireless technology

Cell Phone Radiation Drastically Underestimated for Children

Cell Phone Radiation Drastically Underestimated for Children

by melody on Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011 | 

The scholarly journal Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine released an article online last month concluding that 97% of the population is exceeding current FCC guidelines for cell phone radiation exposure because of flaws in the current measuring system when testing cellphones for the market. The findings for children using cell phones are grim:

Children's radiation absorption rates compared to adults

• Twice the amount to their heads
• Up to three times the amount in the their brain's hippocampus and hypothalamus
• As much as ten times more in their bone marrow

It's enough to make me wonder whether we will begin to see an epidemic of childhood and young adult leukemia in the next decade or so, as the long-term effect of this DNA-damaging radiation begins to express itself in the form of cancer.

For the most part, though, the largely uninformed public hasn't heard about this. Why? Because they either don't want to know, or they just don't care. It doesn't help that the cellphone industry designed the cellphone certification standards and is in clear conflict of interest with any alternative standard that would force them to lower the radiation emissions on their products.

A Better Way to Measure Absorbed Cellular Radiation

The good news is an alternative system exists, based on MRI imaging that can measure the amount of radiation being absorbed into all tissues on people of different sizes. Called the "Virtual Family," it can measure absorption rates on a 5-year-old girl, a 6-year-old boy, an 8-year-old girl, an 11-year-old girl, a 14-year-old boy, a 26-year-old female, a 35-year-old male, an obese adult male, and a pregnant woman at various stages of her pregnancy.

The irony about this new system? It's already FCC approved, and yet it has never been used for certification purposes. Instead, the FCC continues to use an outdated 1991 method for occupational exposure that is completely out of touch with the current widespread saturation of involuntary cellular radiation exposure 24/7, and without regard to the increased vulnerability of certain populations such as children and unborn children in the womb.

Yet despite the increasing number of research studies coming out warning against the dangers of cellphone use, the American population seems to be blithely ignoring the warnings and continuing on with their daily lives, unwilling to accept the idea that their smartphone might not be the best invention since sliced bread.

The Normalcy Bias

Financial investors and psychology experts call this the normalcy bias. Even when the threat of imminent catastrophic harm comes to a town such as New Orleans in 2006 before Hurricane Katrina hit, people refuse to acknowledge the bad and continue with their normal routine until it is too late. More simply put, it's the ostrich sticking its head in the sand.

Don't tell me because I don't want to know. If I don't know that I'm buying my children the equivalent of their first carton of cigarettes at the age of eight and encouraging them to a lifetime of exposure to carcinogenic toxins, maybe I won't have to feel guilty when they get cancer in their early 30s. Maybe I won't be around at that time. Surely they'll have left the house by then and I won't be held responsible for their choices.

I know I'm being harsh. But when it comes down to it, every parent is responsible for protecting the long-term health of their child. If you know that something poses a long-term threat to them, how can you NOT do something about it, regardless of the personal inconvenience? Some parents argue that there are too many other imminent threats like car accidents, kidnappings, and accidental falls, etc. to worry about whether their child's cell phone is going to give them cancer 20 years from now.

But doesn't the same reasoning apply to second-hand cigarette smoke?

The Problem of Consent

The skeptical parent might say, "But no one has officially come out and banned cell phones. I'm going to wait until that happens before I do anything."

No one has come out and banned cell phones yet, but countries like Canada, Israel, Germany, India, France, Finland, Russia and Switzerland have issued  advisories to limit cell phone use for children under the age of 18.

It all boils down to informed consent. It's irresponsible to allow young children who are not old enough to understand the long-term risks of using cell phones to bathe in toxic radiofrequency radiation 24/7.

Other Countries' Wireless Safety Standards

Take a look at Russia, China, Italy, Switzerland, and Austria. All these countries have recently lowered their exposure limits from wireless transmitters in public places. In the case of Austria, the safe exposure limits are more than 5000 times lower than the current FCC standard. Don't believe me? Read our article, The Wireless Human Experiment. The rest of the world is waking up to this threat and is becoming proactive in protecting the health of their most valuable asset: their children.

When is the right time to do something: before the hurricane wipes you out, or after your children have already been swept away?

Don't you think it's time this great country of ours did a little more to protect our own?

Read a summary of the study

Sign the Prove-It Initiative to ask the President to stay the installation of new wireless technologies until better safety standards can be implemented.

Sign the Cellphone Safety Pledge at the Center for Safer Wireless.

http://ecodynamiclivingsolutions.com/cell-phone-radiation-drastically-underestimated-for-children/

Important differences between The ICNIRP and IEEE standards and the FCC standard for cell phones.

Important differences between The ICNIRP and IEEE standards and the FCC standard for cell phones.

August 10, 2012 in -Mailing List, Cell phone news by EMFacts

From Louis Slesin:

The current FCC emission standard for cell phones is 1.6 W/Kg averaged over 1g of tissue. The IEEE and ICNIRP standards are 2.0 W/Kg averaged over 10g of tissue. The difference between 1.6 and 2.0 may not seem large but it’s the averaging volume that is the key factor (as Henry Lai just pointed out to the CHE list -). [Included below].

Changing it from 1g to 10g would lead to a loosening of the cell phone standard by a factor of two or three, according to Jim Lin of the University of Illinois in Chicago. To put it another way, an SAR of 2 W/Kg averaged over 10g is approximately equivalent to an SAR of 4-6 W/Kg average over 1g.

Lin is no radical. He pointed out this difference back in the year 2000. Since then he has become the editor-in-chief of Bioelectromagnetics and is now a member of ICNIRP. Lin was one of those interviewed by the GAO for its new report (see p.32 of the report).

Back in August 2000 when the IEEE was considering “harmonizing” its 1.6 WKg over 1g standard with that of ICNIRP’s 2 W/kg over 10g, Microwave News wrote “If the two organizations [IEEE and NCRP] succeed in harmonizing their standards [with ICNIRP] and move away from the 1.6 W/Kg over 1g limit. would the U.S. FCC follow?” Today, a dozen years later, we may soon find out.

The NCRP is the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.

IEEE did follow ICNIRP, as everyone expected. As for the NCRP, it was put out of business. Jim Lin was the chair of the NCRP committee that was working on revising its RF guidelines. At the time, Lin had made it clear that he would resist any loosening of the cell phone limit by switching the averaging volume from 1g to 10g. Was the closing down of Lin’s committee a coincidence? I don’t think so.

The NCRP no longer works on EMFs or RF, but that’s another story for another day

It’s also important to point out that the U.S. does NOT have an RF exposure standard. The EPA was going to propose one in the 1980′s after doing years of prep work, but then the agency was forced to give it up after the broadcasting industry raised a stink. (There were no cell phones back then.)

To read more about the 1g vs 10g issue, see MWN, J/A00 p.8 and MWN, N/D00 p.3. Both are free downloads available at:
http://microwavenews.com/back-issues.

I hope this helps clarify what I wrote a couple of days ago,
http://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/gao-fcc-reassess-rf-limits-cell-phones

Henry Lai on the GAO Report:

The GAO Report addresses mobile phone exposure, which is near-field partial body exposure. The concern is in the last paragraph on page 17 of the Report- whether exposure limits should be based on SAR averaged over one or ten grams of tissue. As far as I know, the US FCC still uses 1-gm averaging whereas IEEE and ICNIRP recommend 10-gm. Averaging over 10 gm would allow higher emission from a phone- thus higher exposure.

http://www.emfacts.com/2012/08/important-differences-between-the-icnirp-and-ieee-standards-and-the-fcc-standard-for-cell-phones/

Cellphone exposure limits should be reassessed, GAO recommends

Posted at 02:30 PM ET, 08/07/2012

Cellphone exposure limits should be reassessed, GAO recommends

By Hayley Tsukayama

This story has been updated.

Mobile phone exposure limits and testing requirements should be reassessed, according to a Government Accountability Office study released Tuesday.

The study, the culmination of a year-long review done at the urging of lawmakers, comes at a time of heightened concern about the possible impact of cellphone radiation on human health. Its findings may prompt the Federal Communications Commission to update its standards to more accurately reflect how people use their cellphones.

While the report did not suggest that cellphone use causes cancer, the agency did say that FCC’s current energy exposure limit for mobile phones, established in 1996, “may not reflect the latest evidence on the the effects” of cellphones. The study recommends that the FCC reassess two things: the current exposure limit and the way it tests exposure.

In its conclusions, the report says that the FCC has not formally coordinated with the Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency on the exposure limits. The report also raised questions about the FCC’s decision to only test exposure at a distance from a body while using an earpiece, simulating, for example, someone setting their phone on a nearby table rather than in their pocket while speaking.

The FCC, the report said, “may not be identifying the maximum exposure, since some users may hold a mobile phone directly against the body while in use.”

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who called for the GAO to conduct the report said that the study highlights that the FCC is behind the curve when it comes to evaluating the effects cellphones have on the human body.

“With mobile phones in the pockets and purses of millions of Americans, we need a full understanding of the long-term impact of mobile phone use on the human body, particularly in children whose brains and nervous systems are still developing,” Markey said.

Ahead of the study’s release, there’s been renewed interest in the area of cellphone radiation. The FCC has already said that it will investigate whether it should take a new look at the issue.

Last year, a World Health Organization report found that cellphone radiation might possibly be carcinogenic — a point that the GAO study does not raise.

On Monday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced a bill that would put warning labels on cellphones and tap the Environmental Protection Agency — not the FCC — to lead the way in examining the effects that radiation has on the human body.

In a statement, Kucinich said that cellphone users have a right to know how much radiation their phones give off, particularly as people spend more time with them, and not wait for scientists to prove whether there are harmful effects behind cellphone radiation or not.

“It took decades for scientists to be able to say for sure that smoking caused cancer,” Kucinich said. “While we wait for scientists to sort out the health effects of cell phone radiation, we must allow consumers to have enough information to choose a phone with less radiation.”

The city of San Francisco is looking at a labeling measure similar to the one proposed by Kucinich. CTIA, the wireless industry’s trade group, has filed a lawsuit against the proposed ordinance.

In response to the report, the FCC said that it will ask multiple stakeholders — including federal health agencies — for input as it assesses its standards.

"The U.S. has among the most conservative standards in the world,” said FCC spokesman Neil Grace in a statement. “As part of our routine review of these standards, which we began earlier this summer, we will solicit input from multiple stakeholder experts, including federal health agencies and others, to guide our assessment. We look forward to reviewing today's GAO report as part of that consideration."

By Hayley Tsukayama  |  02:30 PM ET, 08/07/2012 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/cellphone-exposure-limits-should-be-reassessed-gao-recommends/2012/08/07/a2eb0b96-e09d-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html

Safer technology in schools

Sunday July 22, 2012

Safer technology in schools

IT IS important that we implement safe school policies and practices, in order to safeguard the health and development of children and help boost their interest in learning.

More scientists and medical doctors, many of whom work on the biological effects of wireless technologies, have voiced their concerns about the safety of wireless devices for schools.

The Austrian Medical Association, for example, recommended WiFi-free school environments.

Based on a report - Safe Schools - published in June, Dr Gerd Oberfeld, from the association, said WiFi environments would lead to high microwave exposure for students and teachers.

He added that it could also increase the burden of oxidative stress which in turn could slow down the energy production especially in brain cells. This could lead to concentration difficulties and memory problems in certain individuals.

Dr Igor Belyaev, the head research scientist, Cancer Research Institute, Slovak Academy of Science, Slovak Republic, said that the usage of WiFi and mobile phones in the classroom should be either forbidden or reduced as much as possible.

Several authorities have already advised limiting the usage of mobile communication by children and have called for their protection from wireless technologies.

In an appeal in 2002, medical doctors in Germany requested that a ban be imposed on mobile telephone and digital cordless telephone use in both preschools and schools.

This included a ban on mobile telephone use by children and restrictions on use by adolescents. They also called for education of the public, regarding the health risks of electromagnetic fields.

Prof Dr Alvaro Augusto A. de Salles of the Electrical Engineering Department at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, said that responsible governments should act firmly to avoid the use of mobile phones and WiFi in schools.

The reasons he said were due to the scientific evidence already available in various publications like the Bioinitiative report,Pathophysiology 2009, Interphone report, showing health risks even at low-level exposure to the non-ionizing radiation.

Instead of a wireless connection, he recommended other fixed connections such as twisted pairs, coaxial cables and optical fibres that should be made available for each student.

He warned that if serious and responsible decisions were not taken, the price in terms of public health for the generations to come could be very high.

http://thestar.com.my/education/story.asp?file=%2F2012%2F7%2F22%2Feducation%2F11697669&sec=education

Why We Know Less Than You Think About Effects Of Cell Phone Radiation

Why We Know Less Than You Think About Effects Of Cell Phone Radiation

A report released on Tuesday by the General Accounting Office called on the U.S. government to review its standards for setting safe levels of cell phone radiation. The report had been requested by several members of Congress, including: Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.), Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.)

In a statement, Eshoo said:

“While the GAO report indicates there is no evidence to suggest using a cell phone causes cancer, it’s important that safety standards are current and account for changing trends in cell phone use and technology,” said Rep. Eshoo. “As the number of users of wireless technology grows exponentially, the FCC should reevaluate acceptable radiation emission levels to determine if they need to be adjusted.”

I wrote about this topic two years ago, in a column published in October 2010. This is a topic that causes a lot of eye rolling in Silicon Valley. But the truth is that what we know, or what we think we know, is less ironclad than most people realize. Now that it appears the government is going to take a serious look at the issue, I’m re-posting that colum: 

By Chris O’Brien 

After many years of increasingly erratic behavior, Alan Marks, of Lafayette, suddenly experienced a severe seizure in the middle of the night. His wife, Ellie, called 911 and Marks was rushed to the hospital, where tests revealed a golf-ball-size brain tumor that apparently was the cause of his personality changes.

The Markses had no doubt about what caused the tumor: It was located exactly where he had been pressing a cell phone to his head for almost two decades.

In the two years since that diagnosis, the Markses have joined an international debate over the potential health risks surrounding the low levels of radiation emitted by cell phones. The couple have testified before the U.S. Congress, been interviewed on national television, and they were instrumental in persuading San Francisco to adopt a controversial ordinance that requires mobile phone retailers to display information about the radiation levels of each model.

“I wanted to share my story because I don’t want others to suffer like we have,” Ellie Marks said.

But how can they be sure the cell phone is to blame? I’ve had a growing interest in this subject in recent months for personal and professional reasons. But what I’ve found is that nobody knows for sure whether cell phones are a health hazard. And that has surprised me and made me nervous.

Several players at the heart of this debate converged on San Francisco last week. CTIA-The Wireless Association had its annual trade show, which it promised would be the last in the city because of the new disclosure law. Marks organized several protests outside the event. And noted epidemiologist Devra Davis, a visiting professor at Harvard University, arrived for several speaking engagements about her recently published book, “Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How To Protect Your Family.”

“When I first heard that there could be problems with cell phones, I didn’t believe it,” Davis said. “I wrote the book because I was stunned to find out I was wrong to assume that these things had to be safe.”

For many years it was believed the low levels of radiation generated by cell phones and towers had no effect on human biology. Now a small but growing number of scientists and health activists are challenging those findings.

Davis’ book cites studies that point to possible links between cell phones and brain tumors and lower sperm counts. Much of this evidence has been attacked from other scientific corners as “junk science” from a lunatic fringe. Having read the book and listened to arguments on both sides, I found myself wondering how the average consumer, who doesn’t have the science background to sort through the details of studies, is supposed to come to an informed conclusion.

My interest in this topic began earlier this year when the owner of a building across the street from our kids’ school in North Oakland signed a contract with Verizon Wireless to install a handful of cell phone towers on his roof. The prospect of these radiation-emitting devices so close to the school alarmed a number of parents at the school, including my wife, who organized an unsuccessful attempt to stop them.

It turns out the 1996 Telecommunications Act contains a provision that bars local governments from considering health effects when deciding whether to grant permits for cell towers. They can only consider aesthetic issues — that is, whether the towers are too ugly for the neighborhood.

Such a restriction seemed heavy-handed and got me wondering: Why was anyone trying to eliminate debates over health effects? Surely if there was a possible health issue with cell phones or towers, someone would have told us, right?

In fact, they have told us. Every cell phone comes with a standard disclosure about the effects of radiation. Like most people, I had never read the safety and product booklet that came with my BlackBerry Curve 8310. But when I did this summer, I found a section where it talks about the amount of radiation the phone emits and then warns me to do the following:

“Keep the device at least 0.98 inches (25 mm) away from your body when the BlackBerry device is turned on and connected to a wireless network.”

If cell phones are safe, why do I need to hold it away from my body?

“Cell phones are small microwave radios,” Davis said. “And you don’t want to hold a small microwave radio next to your head.”

I asked John Walls, a CTIA spokesman, why phones include this warning when there is no government or industrywide mandate to do so.

“It’s been the legal opinions of the various companies that they should supply that warning,” he said.

Hardly reassuring. But what’s really interesting is that the cell phone industry doesn’t actually claim cell phones are safe. It claims that other people do. It points to third-party research by other groups such as the Federal Communications Commission, scientific standards bodies and organizations such as the World Health Organization.

“We don’t have concerns because that is what science has told us about our products,” Walls said. “If anyone knows any different they should let the agencies and public health organizations know. We are not scientists and we defer to their work. The overwhelming consensus is that there is no evidence that people should have cause for concern.”

But that’s not entirely true. In May, the World Health Organization released a 10-year study dubbed “Interphone” that examined the possibility of a link between brain tumors and cell phones. According to Joachim Schüz, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the principal scientist on the Interphone study, the results were inconclusive. But the study noted:

“There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma (brain tumors) for those who reported the highest 10 percent of cumulative hours of cell phone use.”

“The results are really not as clear as we hoped when we started the study,” Schüz said. “Further monitoring of the long-term use of mobile phones is certainly necessary.”

The FCC also delivers mixed signals on the subject. An FCC representative pointed me to the portion of the agency’s website that addresses the issue:

“No scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses. Those evaluating the potential risks of using wireless devices agree that more and longer-term studies should explore whether there is a better basis for RF (radio frequency) safety standards than is currently used.”

Given the lack of clarity, what are we to do?

The FCC lists some precautions, though it wants to be clear that it “does not endorse the need for these practices” because there’s no danger. Got it? But just in case, use a speakerphone or headset, increase the distance between the wireless device and your body, and consider texting rather than talking (unless you’re driving!).

When I talked to Ellie Marks last week, she was on her cell phone getting ready to lead her first protest march to the CTIA convention. She said her husband has been doing well in recent months, but they expect the tumor to come back at some point. I noted that she hadn’t ditched her own wireless phone in the wake of all she had learned.

“I don’t believe in abandoning this technology,” Marks said. “I want the industry to make the equipment safer and be honest about the risks.”

Chris O'Brien 

http://www.siliconbeat.com/2012/08/07/why-we-know-less-than-you-think-about-effects-of-cell-phone-radiation/

Scientific study on rats proves mobile phones damage the brain

Scientific study on rats proves mobile phones 

damage the brain

Neurosurgeon Dr. Leif  Salford has been involved in a number of scientific studies, but he is widely recognised for his work involving microwave radiation and its subsequent biological effects. Since 1988, Dr. Salford  and his team have exposed thousands of rats to microwave radiation.

Their studies confirmed that microwave radiation does damage the blood brain barrier, as original shown by Allan Frey back in 1975, but they also made the shocking discovery that it does so at even much lower levels than a cell phone, effectively rendering any radiation warning labels and SAR levels on mobile phones to be worthless.

A single 2-hour phone call exposure, even at reduced power, was shown to damage or destroy up to 2% of an animal’s brain cells. In addition to this, the animals also experienced memory impairment, genetic damage, and other biological effects. They also showed that damage occurs in a relatively short time-span, with blood-brain barrier leakage occuring after just two minutes of exposure.

The picture below details the damage done, and provides us with a clear warning that using cell phones and mobile phones can permanently damage our brains.

Click image to view full size

• 
  

Fukushima caused mutant butterflies, say scientists

Fukushima caused mutant butterflies, say scientists

NATIONAL AUG. 15, 2012 - 11:45AM JST

TOKYO —

Genetic mutations have been found in three generations of butterflies from near Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, scientists said Tuesday, raising fears radiation could affect other species.

Around 12% of pale grass blue butterflies that were exposed to nuclear fallout as larvae immediately after the tsunami-sparked disaster had abnormalities, including smaller wings and damaged eyes, researchers said.

The insects were bred in a laboratory outside the fallout zone and 18% of their offspring displayed similar problems, said Joji Otaki, associate professor at Ryukyu University in Okinawa.

The figure rose to 34% in the third generation of butterflies, he said, even though one parent from each coupling was from an unaffected population.

The researchers also collected another 240 butterflies in Fukushima in September last year, six months after the disaster. Abnormalities were recorded in 52 percent, which was “a dominantly high ratio”, Otaki told AFP.

The results of the study were published in Scientific Reports, an online research journal from the publishers of Nature.

Otaki later carried out a comparison test in Okinawa exposing unaffected butterflies to low levels of radiation, with the results showing similar rates of abnormality, he said.

“We have reached the firm conclusion that radiation released from the Fukushima Daiichi plant damaged the genes of the butterflies,” Otaki said.

The quake-sparked tsunami of March 2011 knocked out cooling systems at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, causing three reactors to go into meltdown in the world’s worst atomic disaster for 25 years.

The findings will raise fears over the long-term effects of the leaks on people who were exposed in the days and weeks after the accident, as radiation spread over a large area and forced thousands to evacuate.

There are claims that nuclear exposure effects on successive generations have been observed among people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the U.S. dropped atomic bombs in the final days of World War II.

But Otaki warned it was too soon to jump to conclusions, saying his team’s results on the Fukushima butterflies could not be directly applied to other species, including humans.

He added he and his colleagues would conduct follow-up studies including similar tests on other animals.

No one is officially recorded as having died as a direct result of the Fukushima disaster, but many who fled the area and those who remain, including workers decommissioning the crippled plant, worry about the long-term effects.

Scientists have warned it could be decades before it is safe for some people to return to their homes.

“Even if there is no impact now, we have to live with fear,” said Sachiko Sato, a mother of two, who temporarily fled from Fukushima. “And concerns will be handed down to my children and grandchildren.”

© 2012 AFP

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/fukushima-caused-mutant-butterflies-say-scientists