The Microwave Factor

Microwave - and other forms of electromagnetic - radiation are major (but conveniently disregarded, ignored, and overlooked) factors in many modern unexplained disease states. Insomnia, anxiety, vision problems, swollen lymph, headaches, extreme thirst, night sweats, fatigue, memory and concentration problems, muscle pain, weakened immunity, allergies, heart problems, and intestinal disturbances are all symptoms found in a disease process the Russians described in the 70's as Microwave Sickness.

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Get Wired and Take Back Your Power Event, Sponsored by Stop Smart Meters UK

http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/getwired2013/#!prettyPhoto

Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Extremely Low-Frequency (ELF) and Radiofrequency (RF): What are the Health Impacts?

by Alex Quinn

Particularly now that wireless communications are so closely integrated into our daily lives, electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are all around us.

Our cities, especially the larger ones, are perpetually shrouded in an invisible electrosmog, a ‘sea’ of EMFs through which we swim every day.

But does this momentous development in civilisation come with health effects – and if so, can we do anything to reduce them?

What is ELF-EMF and what are its sources?

It’s important to realise that there are two main forms of EMF: radiofrequency (RF)-EMF and extremely low-frequency (ELF)-EMFs. The frequency range of ELF-EMF is 1–300 Hz, and the Earth’s natural geomagnetic field strength varies from around 60 μT (microtesla) at the magnetic poles to around 30 μT at the equator.

Many man-made sources of ELF-EMF exist. Prime among these artificial sources are power lines and electronic appliances, with vacuum cleaners, electric can-openers, microwave ovens, shavers and hair dryers among the most powerful. These appliances emit ELF-EMF at field intensities ranging from 17.44 to 164.75 μT, measured from 5 cm away. Since the intensity of magnetic fields decreases dramatically with increased distance from the source, the corresponding range of magnetic field intensities at 50 cm is 0.12–1.66 μT.

Table 1. ELF-EMFs produced by domestic appliances. Taken from IARC Monograph Volume 80 (2002).

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (INCIRP) has set limits of 1 mT (millitesla) for occupational exposure to ELF-EMF, and 200 μT for general public exposure. While these limits are not breached by individual man-made sources, additive effects must also be considered, as we shall see.

What is RF-EMF and what are its sources?

The frequencies of RF-EMFs are considerably higher than ELF-EMFs, ranging from 100 kHz to 300 GHz. As its name suggests, the main uses of RF-EMF are in broadcasting information. In today’s data-driven world, this means that RF-EMF is constantly around us: it is produced by things such as mobile phone base stations, cordless phones, utility ‘smart’ meters, remote control toys, wireless networks, radar and baby monitors. In addition, there are various natural sources of RF-EMF, including the Earth, the Sun and other black body radiators.

Here’s a shocking statistic: did you know that having a cordless phone base station in your housecan expose you to the same level of RF-EMFs as having a mobile phone mast in your back garden?

Do EMFs pose health problems?

The mainstream view is that the only potential danger from EMFs stems from their heating effects on tissue, in the case of RF-EMF, or of electrical currents induced in the body for ELF-EMF. However, there is strong evidence to suggest that the athermal effects of ELF- and RF-EMFs also contribute to various health problems.

Childhood leukaemia

According to the BioInitiative report, evidence indicates that risk of childhood leukaemia in young boys doubles when they are exposed to ELF-EMF levels of 1.4 mG (milligauss), while other studies indicate that leukaemia risks begin at 2, 3 and 4 mG. This occurs in the context of an ICNIRP limit of 1000 mG.

The BioInitiative report also found that ELF-EMFs interfered with recovery from childhood leukaemia: if a child was exposed to levels of ≥2 mG during recovery, their risk of death increased by 300%, while at levels of ≥4 mG that risk increased to 450%.

Alzheimer’s disease

ELF-EMF has also been found to increase the risk of Alzheimer’s disease by increasing levels of a protein called amyloid beta, a leading risk factor for Alzheimer’s.

Melatonin

EMFs have also been found to decrease the levels of melatonin in the body. Melatonin is produced in the pineal gland of the brain, which produces melatonin when it directly or indirectly detects low light levels. EMFs may interfere with this mechanism because the brain confuses them with light waves, thus suppressing the pineal gland’s melatonin production. Melatonin is an absolutely vital hormone. It acts as a powerful antioxidant, and has been found to aid in the prevention of Alzheimer’s, depression, cardiovascular diseases, insomnia, mood disorders, tinnitus and various cancers.

Brain and auditory nerve cancers

RF-EMFs have been given a 2B classification – possibly carcinogenic – by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). They have been found to be possible causes of acoustic neuromas and brain tumours called gliomas. Studies have shown that using cordless phones, which produce RF-EMFs, can increase the risk of brain tumours by up to 470% after ≥10 years of use when habitually used on one side of the head. Mobile phones, in the same scenario, can increase the risk by up to 200%. Both mobiles and cordless phones can trigger reactions in people who suffer from electrohypersensitivity.

What about interactions between EMFs and other factors?

Of course, EMFs don’t affect us in isolation: everyone living in a city, for example, is bombarded by numerous chemical toxins and other environmental pollutants, and many of them take multiple pharmaceutical drugs – in addition to constant EMF exposure. We are at an early stage of investigating and defining these complex interactions, but existing research indicates that these combinations can have both beneficial and adverse effects. For example, in vitro DNA damage was caused by a 7 mT magnetic field in combination with ferrous chloride, but not with either agent alone. Other combinations of EMFs and agents enhanced analgesia and neural performance.

Call to action: Reduce your EMF exposure!

Thus, you should take as many steps as possible to reduce your exposure to EMFs. Suggested strategies include:

Using fibre-optic cables for your broadband
Using wired connections whenever possible
Keeping mobile and cordless phones away from your body
Using wired baby monitors: children are more effected by EMFs than adults
Keeping wireless routers or cordless phones out of regularly used bedrooms or children’s bedrooms
Reducing time spent in calls when using mobile or cordless phones
Reducing children’s exposure to wireless devices as much as possible
Avoiding using microwave oven
Avoiding placing wireless computers on your lap
Avoiding allowing your children to use remote-control toys for long periods of time, if at all

ANH Europe Homepage
ANH EMR campaign page

http://www.globalresearch.ca/electromagnetic-fields-emf-extremely-low-frequencies-elf-and-radio-frequencies-rf-what-are-the-health-impacts/5335801

Winlaw parents win lobby for no Wi-Fi in school

By Kirsten Hildebrand - Nelson Star

Published: May 09, 2013 4:00 PM

Updated: May 09, 2013 4:27 PM

Winlaw parents have successfully lobbied the school district to have Wi-Fi turned off in their local elementary school.

At the Kootenay Lake School District board meeting on April 16, a group of parents approached trustees with concerns Wi-Fi could cause health problems.

“Many of us requested that the wireless modem at our school be turned off during school hours,” Clare Kelly told 103.5 the Bridge. “We feel that there are no long-term health studies that have been conducted on the effects of wireless frequencies on children or on pregnant women.”

At that board meeting, superintendent Jeff Jones explained there is a district-wide initiative to install wireless technology in all the schools as part of an infrastructure upgrade.

“In our school district, in the last two years, we’ve had a plan roll out where we install wireless in every one of our schools and the purpose of this is to support the changing needs of students,” he said.

As students bring their own devices to school more often, the district is looking toward “ubiquitous” access to technology, said Jones, a successful endeavor until now.

“As technology evolves, the notion of walking down to the library to get information is becoming archaic,” he said. “More and more we are seeing use of devices not attached to wires.”

But when Winlaw elementary school parents expressed concerns, the district decided it best to honour their wishes.

“Of course we assured them that throughout the school district we’re well within the Canada Health guidelines in this context and we’ve been cautious to be careful about what we’re installing in our schools. However, there are a number of people in that community who have expressed their concerns,” he said. “The school community wasn’t quite ready, I don’t think, for this technology so it was easy for us to say ‘we can turn it off.’”

Teachers and administration staff at the Winlaw school aren’t using wireless technology so after making some adjustments to existing electrical, the Wi-Fi will be turned off. It can be turned back on should the sentiments of the community change, said the superintendent.

“We’re working to solve this with the community,” said Jones. “It didn’t seem to make sense to force the issue.”

Kelly, who approached the board along with parent Colleen Emery, said they “were very pleased that the board listened attentively to what we had to say” and that action has been made in their favour.

But she still questions the use of wireless technology that could be harmful to the public. She suggests a district-wide policy address this concern. In 2011, Saanich School District 63 banned Wi-Fi in elementary schools.

“I am really thrilled that this is becoming a public dialogue,” said Kelly. “Many of us are investigating what evidence do we have to say this is safe for our children and we don’t have any. As wireless devices become more common, how are we going to respond to that in the context of the schools?”

Jones said as other schools received their Wi-Fi upgrade, he heard little to no comment.

“It’s taken as a matter of course,” he said. “It’s becoming a growing expectation that there is wireless available. I just think it makes sense to have it in our schools as well.”

http://www.nelsonstar.com/news/206826071.html

Another student Wi-Fi experiment: Wi-Fi may kill mealworms

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Another student Wi-Fi experiment: Wi-Fi may kill mealworms

Strange, what Caroline Schick has built in her basement. A flower box full of mealworms has been placed next to a wireless router.

The 19-year-old did not allow the mealworms access to the Internet. The whole thing was an experiment conducted by Caroline fo "Young Scientists" which gained her first place in the regional competition.

Here is the explanation for the experimental setup:

Caroline wanted to find out whether the radiation of a wireless router (used for wireless internet) is harmful. She selected mealworms because they are very sensitive as they develop into beetles. If the radiation has effects on living organisms, she must be able to observe it in mealworms.

Caroline bought 100 mealworms in a pet shop and placed them in a flower box next to a wireless router. For comparison, she made a second flower box full of worms so far away that the wi-fi radiation did not reach these animals.

After the meal worms had pupated and turned into beetles, "The death rate in the exposed animals was about 19 percent higher," says Caroline.

(Thanks to Safer Phone Day for bringing this to my attention. The original article is in German. I paraphrased above the Google translation.)

http://www.borkenerzeitung.de/nachrichten/borken_artikel,-Nur-das-Siegerstrahlen-ist-gesund-_arid,53628.html

Neurosurgeon Vini Khurama on Brain Tumour Incidence

From: EMFacts Consultancy

Statement from Australian neurosurgeon Gautam (Vini) Khurana:

“I believe that in the present decade, a significant increase in primary brain tumor incidence will be detected internationally. The first indication of this phenomenon may be the plethora of high-profile individuals diagnosed with primary brain tumors in the last few to several years: Senator Ted Kennedy, professional golfer Seve Ballesteros, Cable television host Eleanor Mondale, director and producer Dan Curtis, broadcaster Stan Zemanek, high profile attorney Johnnie Cochran, celebrated pilot Dennis E. Fitch, inventor Robert Moog, political pundit Robert Novak, US Senator Arlen Specter, renowned cancer surgeon Professor Chris O’Brien, baseball pro Gary Carter, journalist David Shaw, Stock broker Rene Rivkin, actress Elizabeth Taylor, actor Mark Ruffalo, actor and musician Martin Kemp, singer Sheryl Crow, rock star Doc Neeson, corporate leader Holly Ann Norwick (partner of Chris Gardner, who was played by Will Smith in film The Pursuit of Happyness), actor / model Rona Newton-John (sister of singer and Grease star Olivia Newton-John), actress Valerie Harper (star of the Mary Tyler Moore Show),…"

SNIP

Read the post here.

Friday, May 24, 2013

More Younger Women Getting Breast Cancer

May 21, 2013 |

By Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

A record number of women under the age of 50 are being diagnosed with breast cancer in the UK, where one out of every five women diagnosed with breast cancer is now younger than 50
A JAMA study similarly found that the number of young women (aged 25-39) in the US being diagnosed with advanced breast cancer is also increasing
Environmental factors, including exposure to synthetic hormones in birth control pills, personal care products and food, are likely fueling the increase
The majority of US breast cancer cases could be prevented if people made wiser lifestyle choices, such as eating healthier, avoiding environmental poisons, exercising and optimizing vitamin D levels

Revealing new data from the charity Cancer Research UK reports that a record number of women under the age of 50 are being diagnosed with breast cancer.

For the first time, more than 10,000 women under 50 were diagnosed with the disease in the UK, which translates to one out of every five women diagnosed with breast cancer.

The news comes on the heels of a JAMA study published earlier this year, which similarly found that the number of young women (aged 25-39) in the US being diagnosed with advanced breast cancer is also increasing.¹

Typically, cancer is much more likely to develop as you get older. The non-profit BreastCancer.org even states:²

“ … the aging process is the biggest risk factor for breast cancer. That's because the longer we live, there are more opportunities for genetic damage (mutations) in the body. And as we age, our bodies are less capable of repairing genetic damage.”

So why is it that so many younger women are now being struck by this potentially deadly disease?

What is Causing Breast Cancer in Young Women?

No one knows for sure, but it’s fairly safe to say that there are likely multiple contributors, many of them environmentally based. Cancer Research UK has singled out hormonal factors, such as having children later in life, having fewer children or taking birth control pills, as probable culprits, for instance.

This makes sense, as in 2002 one of the largest and best-designed studies of hormone replacement therapy was halted because women taking these synthetic hormones had such a higher risk of breast cancer (and heart attack, stroke and blood clots) that continuing forward with the study would have been unethical.

The news made headlines because millions of women were already taking these synthetic hormones, but fortunately it prompted many of them to quit. And what do you think happened a year after millions of women quit taking hormone replacement therapy? Incidence of breast cancer fell dramatically -- by 7 percent!

What does this have to do with the Pill? Birth control pills contain the SAME type of synthetic hormones -- estrogen and progestin -- that were used in the ill-fated study!

Even women who aren’t taking birth control pills are exposed to synthetic hormones that have become increasingly widespread in recent years.

For instance, parabens are chemicals with estrogen-like properties, and estrogen is one of the hormones involved in the development of breast cancer. Parabens are widely used in personal care products like shampoo, lotion, deodorant, shaving gel and cosmetics.

These chemicals have been detected in breast cancer tissues at concentrations up to 1 million times higher than the estrogen (estradiol) levels naturally found in human breast tissue.³ Propylparaben, in particular, was found in the highest concentration in the underarm area (axilla), where underarm deodorants are most used and breast cancer prevalence is at its highest.

Clearly these chemicals are accumulating at alarmingly high concentrations, likely because of their widespread and persistent daily use. And exposure often begins as early as in the womb, the health effects of which are completely unknown.

Another Breast Cancer Risk Hiding in Your Milk …

Not only are children and young women inundated with hormone-mimicking chemicals in personal care products, but such potentially cancer-causing chemicals are also found in a dietary staple for many: milk.

RBGH, or recombinant bovine growth hormone, is a synthetic version of natural bovine somatotropin (BST), a hormone produced in cows' pituitary glands. RBGH is the largest selling dairy animal drug in the US, where cows are injected with it to boost their milk production. But it is banned in Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and in the 27 countries of the European Union because of its dangers to human health.

RBGH milk contains increased levels of insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 regulates cell growth, cell division, and the ability of cancer cells to spread to your distant organs (invasiveness). In other words, IGF-1 has potent growth-stimulating effects in human breast tissue, especially

in the presence of estradiol (a form of estrogen). Growth factors such as IGF-1 are "catalysts" for the transformation of normal breast tissue into breast cancer tissue, and are critically involved in the aberrant growth of human breast cancer cells.

One study showed that premenopausal women with elevated IGF-1 levels had up to a seven-fold increase in breast cancer.⁴And separate research showed women younger than age 35 who have elevated IGF-1 have more aggressive breast cancer.⁵

The breast tissues of female fetuses and infants are especially sensitive to hormonal influences and cancer-causing chemicals. Infants and children exposed to high IGF-1 early on may become "sensitized," leading to health problems later in life, such as breast enlargement in infants and young children, and breast cancer in adult women. Yet, despite these elevated risks to children, few schools make rBGH-free or organic milk available, nor do most state governments under low-income food programs

Toxic Insults, Nutritional Deficiencies Behind Many Breast Cancer Cases

The primary causes of breast cancer -- nutritional deficiencies, exposure to environmental toxicity, inflammation, estrogen dominance and the resultant breakdown in genetic integrity and immune surveillance – still manifest as disease primarily among those over 50. However, the toxic insults are now hitting younger generations, who are much more susceptible to their adverse health effects.

For instance, girls who receive radiation to the chest to treat childhood cancer have a high risk of developing breast cancer at a young age, according to research. Even those who received low doses of the common cancer treatment face an increased risk of breast cancer later, the scientists said.

Plus, in the US, women are still urged to get an annual mammogram starting at the age of 40, despite the fact that updated guidelines set forth by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2009 urge women to wait until the age of 50, and to only get bi-annual screening thereafter.

The primary hazard of mammography is ionizing radiation that may actually increase your cancer risk. According to a 2010 study,⁶ annual screening using digital or screen-film mammography on women aged 40–80 years is associated with aninduced cancer incidence and fatal breast cancer rate of 20-25 cases per 100, 000. This means annual mammograms cause 20-25 cases of fatal cancer for every 100,000 women getting the test. And now with the “new and improved” 3D TOMOSYNTHESIS mammogram, women will be exposed to even more radiation.

Screening Ultrasound Catches Cancers Missed by Mammography

Many women are unaware that if they have dense breast tissue (40 to 50 percent of women), mammograms are basically useless for them. Dense breast tissue and cancer both appear white on an X-ray, making it nearly impossible for a radiologist to detect cancer in these women. It’s like trying to find a snowflake in a blizzard.

Some radiologists already provide density information to their patients, and encourage them to utilize other screening options like thermography, ultrasound and/or MRI. Recent research, in fact, revealed that for women with dense breasts, receiving a screening breast ultrasound after mammography detected an additional 3.4 cancer or high-risk lesions per 1,000 women screened.⁷

I believe it reasonable for a woman to trust that her radiologist is not withholding vital density information, however only California, Connecticut, New York, Virginia and Texas have passed laws making it mandatory for radiologists to inform their patients about this issue. Unfortunately, many have kept this potentially lifesaving data from women for decades, and our government agencies have failed to protect them from this unethical practice.

Top Breast Cancer Prevention Strategies

Cancer screening does NOT equate to cancer prevention, and although early detection is important, using a screening method that in and of itself increases your risk of developing cancer is simply not good medicine ... Preventing breast cancer is far more important and powerful than simply trying to detect it after it has already formed, which is why I want to share my top tips on how to help prevent this disease in the first place.

In the largest review of research into lifestyle and breast cancer, the American Institute of Cancer Research estimated that about 40 percent of US breast cancer cases could be prevented if people made wiser lifestyle choices.⁸ I believe these estimates are far too low, and it is more likely that 75 percent to 90 percent of breast cancers could be avoided by strictly applying the recommendations below, which are the same for young women and older women alike.

Avoid sugar, especially fructose. All forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible.

Optimize your vitamin D. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature's most potent cancer fighters; recent research suggests maintaining your vitamin D levels may cut your cancer risk by 77 percent. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (programmed cell death). If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should be between 70 and 100 ng/ml.

Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I'm aware of, with no adverse effects. I suggest you try watching my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to learn more.

Remember that if you take oral vitamin D3 supplements, you also need to increase your vitamin K2 intake, as vitamin D increases the need for K2 to function properly. See my previous article What You Need to Know About Vitamin K2, D and Calcium for more information.

Please consider joining one of GrassrootsHealth’s D*Action’s vitamin D studies to stay on top of your vitamin D performance. For more information, see my previous article How Vitamin D Performance Testing Can Help You Optimize Your Health.

Get plenty of natural vitamin A. There is evidence that vitamin A also plays a role in helping prevent breast cancer.⁹It's best to obtain it from vitamin A-rich foods, rather than a supplement. Your best sources are organic egg yolks, raw butter, raw whole milk, and beef or chicken liver.

Lymphatic breast massage can help enhance your body’s natural ability to eliminate cancerous toxins. This can be applied by a licensed therapists, or you can implement self-lymphatic massage. It is also promotes self-nurturance.

Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame-broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide — a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried — has been found to increase breast cancer risk as well.

Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells. It is believed that fermentation actually transforms soy phytoestrogens like daidzin, glycitin and genistin to the more active phytogestrogenic compounds dadzein, glycitein and genistein. But, these phytoestrogens are adaptopgenic and can even block out endogenous estradiol and xenobiotic estrogens, reducing their harm as least in theory.

Improve your insulin receptor sensitivity. The best way to do this is by avoiding sugar and grains and making sure you are exercising, especially with Peak Fitness.

Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It's important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.

Drink a half to whole quart of organic green vegetable juice daily. Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed information.

Get plenty of high-quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.

Curcumin. This is the primary active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations, especially when combined with a phospholipid such as phosphatidyl choline or the black pepper compound piperine, can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of breast cancer. It shows immense therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis.¹⁰ It's important to know that curcumin is generally not absorbed that well, so I've provided several absorption tips here.

Avoid drinking alcohol, or at least limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.

Breastfeed exclusively for up to six months. Research shows breastfeeding can reduce your breast cancer risk.

Avoid wearing underwire bras. There is a good deal of data that metal underwire bras can heighten your breast cancer risk.

Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible. Even electric blankets may increase your cancer risk.

Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy. Breast cancer is an estrogen-related cancer, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy. (As mentioned, there are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which are also comprised of synthetic hormones, have been linked to cervical and breast cancers.)

If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.

Avoid BPA, phthalates and other xenoestrogens. These are estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk

Make sure you're not iodine deficient, as there's compelling evidence linking iodine deficiency with breast cancer. Dr. David Brownstein,¹¹ author of the book Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can't Live Without It, is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer. It actually has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer cells.

For more information, I recommend reading Dr. Brownstein's book. I have been researching iodine for some time ever since I interviewed Dr. Brownstein as I do believe that the bulk of what he states is spot on. However, I am not at all convinced that his dosage recommendations are correct. I believe they are likely too high.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/21/breast-cancer-young-women.aspx?e_cid=20130521_PRNL_art_2&utm_source=prmrnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20130521

Study: Amphibians disappearing at alarming rate

Study: Amphibians disappearing at alarming rateBy JEFF BARNARD | Associated Press – 13 hrs ago

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — A new study has determined for the first time just how quickly frogs and other amphibians are disappearing around the United States, and the news is not good.

The U.S. Geological Survey said Thursday that populations of frogs, salamanders and toads have been vanishing from places where they live at a rate of 3.7 percent a year.

That puts them on a path to disappearing from half their inhabited sites nationwide in 20 years.

USGS ecologist Michael J. Adams said the alarming news is that even species thought to be doing OK are declining, though at a slower rate, 2.7 percent a year.

"These are really ancient species that have been surviving a long time on earth through all kinds of changes," Adams said. "It's just a concern to see."

The data showed that species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature red list of declining species were disappearing from sites at an even higher rate, 11.6 percent a year. That would result in half the sites being unoccupied in six years. A third of amphibian species are on the red list.

"They just disappear," Admas said. "Populations are going away."

It has been known for a long time that amphibians are in trouble around the world from a killer fungus, habitat loss and a changing climate, but this is the first time that decline has been measured, Adams said.

"We are not making predictions," he added. "We are just trying to document the current trend."

Researchers plan to continue monitoring amphibians, giving scientists a way to measure how effective future efforts are in protecting and restoring the animals, Adams said

The study conducted by the USGS Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative was published Wednesday in the online journal PLOS One.

Scientists from USGS monitored hundreds of ponds, streams and other sites in 34 study areas around the country for the past nine years, returning two or three times a year to see if they were occupied and by what species. Most of the sites were on public lands with some level of protection.

"It's troubling that even on what are basically protected areas, we are seeing declines on average," Adams said.

Andrew Blaustein, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University not involved in the study, said the results were not surprising, because scientists have been worried about amphibians since the early 1990s.

"Now we need to continue to look at the causes, which will not be simple, because as the study suggest, they may involve factors that are not limited to local regions," he said in an email. "Many agents, including disease, atmospheric changes, pollutants, changes in climate etc. may interact with one another.

"We should continue our efforts to save these animals because of their importance in ecosystems."

Adams said it was difficult to help amphibians cope with something as big as climate change, but steps were being taking to remove more localized threats, such as non-native species of fish that eat amphibians.

___

Online:

The study published on PLOS One: http://bit.ly/12Nxina

http://news.yahoo.com/study-amphibians-disappearing-alarming-rate-173709412.html

Electromagn Biol Med. 2010 Jun;29(1-2):31-5. doi: 10.3109/15368371003685363.

Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory.

Balmori A.

C/Navarra, Valladolid, Spain. abalmori@ono.com

Abstract

An experiment has been made exposing eggs and tadpoles of the common frog (Rana temporaria) to electromagnetic radiation from several mobile (cell) phone antennae located at a distance of 140 meters. The experiment lasted two months, from the egg phase until an advanced phase of tadpole prior to metamorphosis. Measurements of electric field intensity (radiofrequencies and microwaves) in V/m obtained with three different devices were 1.8 to 3.5 V/m. In the exposed group (n = 70), low coordination of movements, an asynchronous growth, resulting in both big and small tadpoles, and a high mortality (90%) was observed. Regarding the control group (n = 70) under the same conditions but inside a Faraday cage, the coordination of movements was normal, the development was synchronous, and a mortality of 4.2% was obtained. These results indicate that radiation emitted by phone masts in a real situation may affect the development and may cause an increase in mortality of exposed tadpoles. This research may have huge implications for the natural world, which is now exposed to high microwave radiation levels from a multitude of phone masts.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560769

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Keep Wi-Fi from schools until more testing done

Vancouver Sun May 22, 2013

Re: Parental fear of Wi-Fi in schools is unfounded, Letters, May 15

Wi-Fi uses the same frequency, not bandwidth as a microwave oven, 2.45 Ghz, with lower power density.

The frequency of cosmic background radiation (CBR) peaks in the microwave frequency range of 160.2 Ghz with a shorter wavelength than Wi-Fi.

Microwave ovens do not run 24 hours a day. The beacon signal from a Wi-Fi network radiates 24/7 at full power to broadcast the name of the Wi-Fi network.

Comparing Wi-Fi to cosmic background radiation is like comparing apples to oranges. Humans have adapted to low levels of natural CBR over millenia.

Sir William Stewart, biologist and former head of the British Health Protection Agency, stated in May 2007 on BBC's Panorama that the rollout of Wi-Fi in schools should stop until heath testing is done.

Cardiologist Dr. Stephen Sinatra, former chief of cardiology at Manchester Memorial Hospital, has written to school districts warning that Wi-Fi can cause the hearts of some children to go out of rhythm - what he calls "undiagnosed ventricular tachycardia."
Dr. David Carpenter, a Harvard-educated public health physician at University of Albany New York has spoken out very strongly against Wi-Fi.

It sounds to me like all parents have much to be concerned about.

Carl Katz Surrey

Israeli researchers ‘light-years ahead’ on studies of cellphone risks

by Toby Tabachnick, Staff Writer

Most people have no idea that their iPhone comes with a warning to carry the device at least 10 mm away from the body, and to use a “hands-free” option like headphones or speaker, in order to prevent overexposure to harmful levels of radio frequency energy.

Here is what one has to do to find that warning: Go to Settings; click on “General;” click on “About;” click on “Legal;” then click on “RF.”

“Nobody reads that warning,” said Devra Davis, founder of the Environmental Health Trust, an organization dedicated to educating people about controllable environmental health risks.

Just as the tobacco industry worked to conceal the dangers of its products back in the mid-20th century, the makers of cellphones may be obscuring the risks of their products, according to Davis, author of “Disconnect,” a silver winner of the Nautilus Book Award for Conscious Media/Journalism/Investigative Reporting. “Disconnect,” first published in 2010, and now re-issued, exposes the dangers of cellphones as well as the industry’s attempt to obfuscate those dangers.

“This is worse than cigarettes,” Davis said, “because cigarettes had no value to society. But phones are valuable.”

And they are highly profitable, which may be why the industry is reluctant to admit the phones do pose risks, or to highlight the simple precautions that can reduce those risks.

The examples extend from outright cover-up to legal maneuvering.

In the afterward to “Disconnect,” Davis reports on a 1994 “smoking gun,” a memo from Motorola to a public relations firm seeking “war-gaming” action against a study showing that microwave radiation to the brains of rats unraveled brain DNA.

In San Francisco, while a “right to know” law passed, “the industry fought it on the grounds of the First Amendment,” Davis said. “The city recently agreed not to enforce its own law.”

The potential dangers of cellphones are many, said Davis, who was the founding director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute.

Cellphones are two-way microwave radios that emit low levels of electromagnetic radiation. Risks from carrying them too close to the body, or holding them up to the head for prolonged periods of time, range from reduced male fertility to brain cancer.

While there is not a lot of current information in the United States about the dangers of cellphones, Davis said, “Israelis are light-years ahead of us in research, and are yielding some unfortunate statistics.”

For example, researchers in Israel have found that one in five cases of a rare tumor in the cheek is now occurring in children under 20 years of age, she said, and is correlated to cellphone use in that demographic.

In March, Israeli scientists reported preliminary findings of a possible link between cellphone radiation and thyroid cancer. Thyroid cancer has been on the rise for more than a decade in Israel, corresponding to Israelis’ increase in the use of cellphones.

Perhaps because of the research, Israel now has “much more aggressive rules,” Davis said. “You can’t sell a cellphone without a headset. And there are warnings from the Israeli Ministry of Health.”

Israel is not the only country aggressively researching the dangers of cellphone radiation.

A new Swedish study published just this month indicates that those who began using cellphones regularly before the age of 20 have more than a fourfold increased risk of ipsilateral glioma, a brain tumor formed on the same side of the head on which a person holds his phone.

The research seems to indicate that the younger one is when he begins to use a cellphone, the greater his potential risk.

A new publication on the EHT website, written by several eminent epidemiologists, concludes that “new studies released since the time the World Health Organization concluded cellphones were a ‘possible human carcinogen’ in 2011 now indicate the cellphone radiation is a ‘probable human carcinogen,’” according to Davis.

“We base that conclusion on studies that have looked at people who started to use cellphones heavily before age 20,” she said. “Those studies are very infrequent. But all the studies done find that those who begin to use cellphones regularly before age 20 have four to eight times more brain cancer, and also increased rates of leukemia within 10 years.”

Cellphone radiation has also been associated with damaging sperm, according to Davis.

“If you have a sperm sample from one man, and you divided it into two test tubes, and one test tube gets exposed to cellphone radiation and the other does not, the sperm exposed to cellphone radiation die three times more quickly and have three times more damage on their DNA than the same sample of sperm that is not exposed to cellphone radiation,” she said, citing research.

Despite the potential dangers of the phones, there are precautions one can take to reduce the risks.

Dr. Frank Lieberman, director of the Adult Neuro-Oncology Program at the UPMC Cancer Center, advises people to refrain from holding cellphones next to their head, and to opt for texting, or using the speaker option or a bluetooth type device when making calls. In addition, people should not carry cellphones while on the receiving mode in a pocket next to their body, he said.

“The most important guideline is against holding the thing next to your head for hours,” he said. “But if you’re talking about very brief calls, there’s probably not much risk to that.”

While Lieberman said the studies are contradictory, and that there is not a “conclusive causal relationship” between brain tumors and cellphone use, “there is good scientific evidence that electromagnetic radiation does affect brain function and cell biology. There is reason to be concerned that electromagnetic radiation could have a damaging effect. It is a good idea to advise people to be cautious even though the causal relationship hasn’t been established.”

In the meantime, the industry could be doing more to protect the public. There is “no doubt” that phones could be made safer, Davis said.

“Look,” Davis continued, “I am not opposed to cellphones. I simply want to make them as safe as possible. Cellphones are like cars were in the 1950s; we can’t live without them, but let’s make them safe with seat belts and air bags, and stop giving them to children and toddlers.”

(Toby Tabachnick can be reached at tobyt@thejewishchronicle.net.)