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 03, 2014

Olle Johansson full interview - Electromagnetic waves (Ondas electromagneticas)

Olle Johansson full interview - Electromagnetic waves (Ondas electromagnetic as)

Friday, May 02, 2014

Comcast aims for 8 million WiFi hotspots

A search for one Center City zip code also turns up Xfinity WiFi hot spots nearby.

Fernandez, Inquirer Staff Writer

POSTED: May 02, 2014

Accelerating plans for a national wireless network, Comcast Corp. expects to light up eight million WiFi hotspots in the United States by the end of 2014, the company said Wednesday.

That would be eight times the one million hotspots the cable giant had deployed in early April in 39 states and Washington.

Comcast's "Xfinity WiFi Initiative" utilizes free wireless spectrum and wireless radios or gateways in outdoor areas such as parks and train platforms, as well as restaurants, stores, doctors' offices, and homes.

Sam Schwartz, chief business development officer for Comcast's cable division, said public Internet traffic is "completely segregated" from private Internet traffic and poses no security issues for its Xfinity subscribers in their homes. Access to the WiFi network is only available to Xfinity customers.

"In many places you go now, you will no longer need to spend money on cellular data," Schwartz said.

Comcast says the WiFi network won't be an expensive capital investment because of piggybacking on the wireless gateways in subscriber homes and hanging WiFi wireless transmitters on cable lines, tapping into the electricity and the Internet broadband already coursing through those overhead cable lines.

Comcast landed on the WiFi strategy because of the soaring demand for wireless bandwidth from tablets and phones, combined with the popularity of "TV Everywhere" applications that stream TV shows and movies to portable electronic devices.

Neil Smit, Comcast's cable division president, recently told Wall Street analysts that 75 percent to 80 percent of mobile data consumption takes place in homes and offices, areas served by WiFi.

Cisco Systems Inc., the telecom equipment-maker, says that 88 percent of U.S. data traffic on mobile and portable devices will travel over WiFi systems by 2018.

Comcast, meanwhile, said Wednesday that about 200 million out-of-home WiFi sessions have been initiated on its Xfinity network in the first four months of this year, a 700 percent boost from the same period last year.

Comcast observers have speculated on Comcast's WiFi network and what it could mean for the company - speculation the company hasn't dampened.

"We are in a position to think about where wireless is going and how we can participate in a way to build value and whether that is through our existing products or it's a new product," Comcast chief executive Brian Roberts said in a conference call with Wall Street analysts on April 22.

Comcast says it will add hotspots in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Hartford, Houston, Indianapolis, Miami, Minneapolis, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Portland, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington.

bfernandez@phillynews.com

215-854-5897

@bobfernandez1

http://articles.philly.com/2014-05-02/business/49555320_1_comcast-corp-national-wireless-network-neil-smit

Thursday, May 01, 2014

Look Up

DoD's Electromagnetic Spectrum Strategy: The military industrial partnership realised

Dwight Eisenhower once warned about the dangers of a future US military/industrial complex. To quote:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

I also examined this in my thesis, how the development of the IEEE c95.1 RF standard was very much a military/ industry joint effort.

http://www.emfacts.com/download/Chapter3.pdf

Reading the below DoD press release from Feb 2014 its obvious Eisenhower’s words of warning have turned out to be all too true.

SNIP

Read the post here.

Brain implant could restore MEMORIES in wounded soldiers and Alzheimer's sufferers - but is it ethical?

The brain implant plans were first unveiled in February by U.S researchers

They are being developed by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Project was set up to restore memories in people with brain damage

This includes wounded soldiers plus Alzheimer's and dementia patients

Exact details are still being developed but it would build on memory studies carried out on monkeys and rats

But critics have said manipulating memories is ethically wrong

By VICTORIA WOOLLASTON

PUBLISHED: 07:01 EST, 1 May 2014 | UPDATED: 10:14 EST, 2 May 2014

View
comments

Aside from the physical impacts brain damage has on the body, the loss of memory can be as devastating and restrictive.

The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is working on restoring these memories using brain implants that could reverse the loss in wounded soldiers, and benefit Alzheimer's and dementia patients.

Although the exact science behind the plans won't be announced 'for a few months', a medical ethicist has expressed concerns the technology could interfere with a patient's personality and even their conscience.

The U.S Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has revealed more details about its memory stimulator. Its implants will be used to restore memories in wounded soldiers, as well as Alzheimer's sufferers, and could involve stimulating the hippocampus, highlighted, the part of the brain involved in processing memories

HOW COULD THE IMPLANTS WORK?

As part of the project, DARPA hopes to build on neuroengineering advances such as implants already used to treat Parkinson's disease.

It will also draw on the work carried out on monkeys and rodents by Wake Forest University.

Studies have proved neurons in the hippocampus - the part of the brain that processes memory - fire differently when animals see different colours, for example.

Using prosthetics designed to stimulate the hippocampus, researchers were able to extend the short-term, working memory of these animals.

But to restore a human's specific memory, scientists would need to know the precise pattern for that memory.

Alternatively, they could restore the brain to work in a way it used to before the injury or damage was caused.

The brain implant plans were first unveiled in February by U.S researchers seeking contributions from relevant drug and technology companies.

During a conference at Center for Brain Health at the University of Texas at Dallas this week, project manager Justin Sanchez said: 'If you have been injured in the line of duty and you can't remember your family, we want to be able to restore those kinds of functions.

'We think that we can develop neuroprosthetic devices that can directly interface with the hippocampus, and can restore the first type of memories we are looking at, the declarative memories.'

But medical ethicist Arthur Caplan said: 'When you fool around with the brain you are fooling around with personal identity.

'If I could take a pill or put a helmet on and have some memories wiped out, maybe I don't have to live with the consequences of what I do.'

As part of the project, DARPA hopes to build on neuroengineering advances such as implants already used to treat Parkinson's disease, built by Minneapolis firm Medtronic.

First Lieutenant Jay Park is pictured undergoing cognitive testing at the Fort Campbell Army Base in Kentucky. It's estimated more than 280,000 soldiers have some form of brain injury. The DARPA project is a section of President Obama's BRAIN initiative, created to fund research to treat common brain disorders

Brainwaves are pictured on a computer screen. DARPA hopes to develop a device that is portable and wireless and that 'must incorporate implantable probes' which will both record and stimulate brain activity

Medtronic's implant is already authorised for sale in the U.S. and similar devices manufactured by Minnesota's St. Jude Medical, and Boston Scientific in Massachusetts, are in the process of gaining approval.

It will also draw on the work carried out on monkeys and rodents by Robert Hampson, an associate professor at Wake Forest University.

DARPA hopes to build on neuroengineering advances such as implants already used to treat Parkinson's disease, including the Medtronic, pictured

He has proved neurons in the hippocampus - the part of the brain that processes memory - fire differently when animals see different colors or pictures of food compared to faces.

Using prosthetics designed to stimulate the hippocampus, Hampson was able to extend the short-term, working memory of his subjects.

But to restore a human's specific memory, Hampson said scientists would need to know the precise pattern for that memory.

Alternatively, they could restore the brain to work in a way it used to before the injury or damage was caused to improve and develop their memory.

'The way human memory works is one of the great unsolved mysteries,' said Andres Lozano, chairman of neurosurgery at the University of Toronto.

'This has tremendous value from a basic science aspect. It may have huge implications for patients with disorders affecting memory, including those with dementia and Alzheimer's disease.'

The DARPA project is a section of President Barack Obama's BRAIN initiative, created to fund research that could treat common brain disorders.

Eventually, DARPA hopes to develop a device that is portable and wireless and that 'must incorporate implantable probes' which will both record and stimulate brain activity.

Sanchez confirmed more details about the plans will be announced 'in the next few months.'

3rd International Congress on Neurology and Epidemiology. Abu Dhabi, UAE, November 21-23, 2013: Abstracts.

Vol. 41 Nr. 3-4 Página: 223 - 316

However, be advised, the information that we can read from the abstract is absolutely CORRECT. This person did a wonderful job. This is a wonderful summary of what I learned from Dr. Rea when I was in Dallas. This person KNOWS and did the homework.

If you can´t get a hold of the article, maybe we should try and do the study ourselves. It´s beautiful!

I have already ordered these pages from the journal with the conviction that apart from the abstract, there´s nothing else in there.

Kind regards,

Carlos Sosa

Electrosensitivity from a neurological point of view

Griesz-Brisson M

Neuroepidemiology 2013 41:3-4 (275)

Objective: The entity of electrosensitivity is still a new and a widely controversial topic in medicine. However, we cannot deny that we are increasingly confronted by patients with a variety of symptoms in the presence of cellphone transmitter masts, computers, cellphones and the like.

Method: 22 electrosensitive patients were tested and treated in a standardised way. The results were audited. Hair and urine was tested for essential elements (Mg, Se, Zn etc) and toxic heavy metals (Hg, Cd, Pb, etc.), blood was tested for genetic detoxification enzymes (Glutathion S-Transferase M1 and T1 und N-Acethyltransferase), blood was tested in the MELISA Test for hypersensitivity to heavy metals, EEG and brain mapping was performed as a baseline and in the presence of a cellphone held to the ear (but not talking), blood pressure and pulse were measured every 5 minutes with an automated blood pressure machine. Subjective symptoms were recoded in a questionnaire.

Results: There was a deficit in essential elements in 81.8% and an overload of toxic elements in 86.4% in the hair, genetic polymorphysm for GST T1 in 27.3%, GST M1 in 68.0%, GST T1 and M1 in 23% and NAT in 40.9%, hypersensitivity to heavy metals Ni59.1%, Au23.1%, Hg15.4%, Pd7.7%, Ag7.7%, Mo7.7%. There was evidence of EEG, ECG and blood pressure changes during and after exposure to electromagnetic fields induced by a mobile phone.

Conclusion: The audit provided evidence that in electrosensitive patients there is a deficiency in essential elements and an overload in toxic elements, genetic polymorphysms and hypersensitivities against heavy metals. The EEG/brain mapping showed that the brain reacts promptly in a paradoxical way and the cardio-vascular parameter changes (heart rate and rhythm, and blood pressure) were protracted in time. The questionnaire showed that the subjective symptoms started during exposure and continued after exposure stop.

Correspondence Address

Griesz-Brisson M.: 100 Harley Street, United Kingdom.

Environmental medicine pioneer William J Rea recommends the Smart Meter Guard ($129.95 USD)

"Try www.smartmeterguard.com"

Bill Rea

Have any of you tested it?

See video showing it stops 98 % of microwaves from entering homes:

http://www.smartmeterguard.com/

The glass part of your smart meter is where the RF waves are transmitted from and they're not directional. The RF waves radiates everywhere but can not penetrate grounded metal. Once the Smart Meter Guard is installed it covers that last part of your utility box that is not grounded metal. Once the Smart Meter Guard is in place the high frequency radiation can not escape your utility box and all the radiation is contained.

http://www.smartmeterguard.com/pages/data

Breaking News: Industry bias exposed in SCENIHR’s scientific assessment

May 1, 2014 in -Mailing List, Corporate influence on Science, Tobacco science and the art of spin byEMFacts

From Eileen O’Connor, UK Radiation Research Trust

Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) member Dr Kjell Hansson Mild has exposed control of science within the SCENIHR group. SCENIHR excluded many studies from the latest scientific review, including five studies by the Hardell Group, published in 2013. Dr. Mild was a co-author with Dr. Hardell. At the same time SCENIHR excluded Dr. Hardell’s and Dr. Mild’s key scientific papers, they promoted Dr. Mild’s participation in SCENIHR as giving balance and transparency to this process. These studies from the Hardell Group are the longest studies on mobile phones and brain cancer. Of even greater significance is Hardell’s conclusion that the proof of mobile phones causing an increase in gliomas — the deadliest of brain tumours, and acoustic neuromas tumours on the auditory nerve.

The SCENIHR Report fails to do a thorough review of hundreds of papers on non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biological health effects, and excludes literally hundreds of papers containing new information in the field concerning adverse EMR impacts.

In addition, Lukas Margaritis, Professor Emeritus from the University of Athens and Dr. Adamantia Fragopoulou, forwarded a report to SCENIHR including references to superb research highlighting studies working with everyday use of wireless devices demonstrating serious impacts on oxidative stress induction, learning and memory deficits, fertility reduction and cell death in animal models. These studies are published in high quality peer reviewing journals yet they are still excluded from the SCENIHR report.

Dr Fragopoulou said, “We have pointed out serious omissions of publications from the SCENIHR opinion during the hearing in Athens on March 27-28 as well as on the uploaded file to SCENIHR. We are expecting to see much more references in the final form of the report.”

The UK Radiation Research Trust and the Bioinitiative Working Group have raised complaints directly with the Acting Director at the EU Commission and are calling all politicians to raise this issue at the highest level as many lives are at risk and the public has a right to know.

See letters of complaint from the UK Radiation Research Trust (below) and the Bioinitiative Work Group to John Ryan, Acting Director of the Public Health Directorate at the EU Commission .

Eileen O’Connor
Director
EM Radiation Research Trust

**********************************************************************
28th April, 2014
John F. Ryan, Acting Director
Public Health Directorate,
Health and Consumers Directorate General
European Commission,
L – 2920 Luxembourg

SCENIHR Report on Potential Health Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)
Sent via email

Dear John

Thank you for your response via email on 22nd April. I appreciate your support for SCENIHR, however this group along with other bodies such as ICNIRP, IEEE and Public Health England are failing to acknowledge and accept peer-reviewed research if it does not meet with their approval or understanding.

I have engaged with all sides of the debate for many years in the hope that we can find a way forward together. However, the division between both sides of the debate is becoming greater and leading to stronger opposition from both sides. It is an impasse that leaves private citizens at risk, and we must make every effort to root out undue influence from the industry whose profits are affected by decisions made by committee’s like SCENIHR. A body is not truly “independent” if financial ties can be made by the affected industry to committee member(s). There should be no place for financial influence in science, but sadly there is, and with potentially devastating long-term consequences for our citizens.

I was pleased to see Dr Kjell Hansson Mild as a member of the EMF working group and realise he is the co-author of the Hardell papers. However, I am sure you will agree that his appointment to SCENIHR is only worthwhile if his opinion and work is taken into account and I question if that was the case as it was clear during the event in Athens that the important Hardell 2013 papers were rejected by SCENIHR. I therefore call on the EU Commission to investigate whether there has been any misuse of authority when selecting and rejecting important papers for review.

One scientist does not promise true “independence” for the group as a whole. The independence of SCENIHR has been brought into question for many years by members of the public, doctors, scientists and politicians. I would like to highlight several examples.

Please see attached a recent report from the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation. This report clearly states that SCENIHR provided false, inaccurate, misleading and biased information and is claiming scientific fraud with a call for the report to be revised and submitted to a new group of experts that are capable of presenting an objective and accurate report of what science has shown about health risks.

Serious allegations of corruption need to be investigated as a matter of urgency. We appear to be wasting public money on biased reports and delaying urgent action to implement the precautionary warnings that are urgently needed to protect public health.

I would also like to draw your attention to questions raised on 16th March, 2009 by Christel Scaldemose to the Commission. These questions raise concerns regarding
the Independence of experts on the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. The Commission is challenged on whether these experts,
who were involved in establishing the limits values working with ICNIRP, can be regarded as impartial and independent. Christel Scaldemose also asked what
measures will the EU Commission take to find a better balance between critical and uncritical researchers. Download here:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=P-2009-1843&language=EN

In addition, Dr Caroline Lucas launched an Alternative Resolution to the 2009 Ries Report on “Heath concerns associated with EMFs.” The Greens/EFA group raised
the urgent alternative motion (see attachment) as the Ries Report was forced to include a late amendment calling for SCENIHR to review the scientific adequacy of
EMF limits. The Green Party therefore submitted the Alternative Resolution, deleting the paragraph calling for SCENIHR to undertake the review. There was no
doubt that this controversial last-minute amendment giving SCENIHR such authority would override excellent recommendations and precautionary measures
contained within the Ries Report due to the predictable and biased nature of reporting from SCENIHR. Sadly it was too late and the Reis Report containing the
controversial amendment calling for the review was put forward and adopted by MEPs with 559 voting for and 22 against and 8 abstentions. Download the report
with the late amendment listed as number 1 within the following Text. Download here:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2009-0216

I feared that we would face the current situation that we are seeing today as a result of that late amendment and we are now witnessing another publicly funded biased report by SCENIHR at the cost of wasted money, but more importantly at the possible cost of many lives.

Displays of arrogance, biased, misleading and scientific fraudulent reporting as highlighted by the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation is not acceptable. I would like to remind the EU Commission of the opening address in Athens from Marian Harkin MEP expressing the need for a review of up to date evidence and the need for accountability. She stressed importance of openness towards lobbying and diverse opinions and the need for transparency and inclusion of all stakeholders. She reminded the EU Commission and SCENIHR that public consultation should not simply be a box ticking exercise and that consultation is only meaningful if addressing negative outcomes along with reports that have positive outcomes. Furthermore and perhaps most profoundly, she gave the stark reminder that 500 million citizens are relying on SCENIHR’s review.

I have no doubt that Marian Harkin along with many MEPs and millions of citizens throughout the EU and the world will be disappointed to hear that SCENIHR failed with this task and their responsibility towards accurate reporting. Yet greater than my concern about the disappointment of many is my profound fear about the potential adverse health effects for all that will continue to be visited upon our 500,000,000 citizens as the Precautionary Principle in Europe becomes nothing but a weak phrase with no meaning and no protection for citizens who have absolutely no idea of these back room dealings. These good people depend on the EC and its committees for truth, not cover-up, and the money flowing to scientists who tell them all is well is a crime against each and every one of them.

The five studies by the Hardell Group published in 2013 demand RF – EMF be classified a Group 1 carcinogen. Hardell himself states this in the conclusion of one of his most compelling epidemiologist studies. If it were almost any scientist but Lennart Hardell, one might imagine it is easy to dismiss a single scientific group or individual. To do so with Hardell’s science would be the height of scientific hypocrisy. Why? Lennart Hardell’s epidemiological studies, prior to his five papers published in 2013 were ignored by SCENIHR, when half the basis for IARC’s call in May 2011 for everything on the RF – EMF Spectrum to be classified a Group 2B carcinogen. If Hardell’s earlier study were good enough for IARC in 2011, then can SCENIHR please explain why the additional five studies of even longer duration and more specificity deemed “unworthy” by SCENIHR IN 2014? There is no answer, and it is a reason that should bring shame to SCENIHR and by association, to the European Commission itself.

I call on the Commission to listen to truly independent/knowledgeable doctors, scientists and members of the public and take advice from the appeal contained within the Greens Alternative Motion calling for the European Group on Ethics in Science and new Technologies (EGE) to be given the additional task of assessing scientific integrity in order to help the Commission forestall possible cases of risk, conflict of interests, or even fraud that might arise now that competition for researchers has become keener.
Thank you for your attention in this urgent and serious matter.

With respect,
Eileen
Eileen O’Connor
Director
EM Radiation Research Trust
www.radiationresearch.org
The EM Radiation Research Trust is an educational organisation funded by donations. An independent Charity Registered No. 1106304 © The EM Radiation Research Trust 2003-2004
Cc: via email
Mike Bell
Joe Benton MP
Severine Bernard
Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe
Laurent Bontoux
Bill Esterson MP
Jill Evans MEP
Susan Foster
Giulio Gallo
Dr Ian Gibson
Dr Lennart Hardell
Marian Harkin MEP
Dr Caroline Lucas MP
Donata Meroni
Dr Kjell Hansson Mild
Steve Miller
Andrew Mitchell MP
Cindy Sage
Stefan Schreck
Brian Stein
www.radiationresearch.org

http://www.emfacts.com/2014/05/breaking-news-industry-bias-exposed-in-scenihrs-scientific-assessment/

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Smart Meters: The Opposite of Green

http://www.emfanalysis.com/uploads/1/0/7/8/10781272/common_ground_article_april_2014.pdf

Geomagnetic Storms Can Trigger Stroke

Evidence From 6 Large Population-Based Studies in Europe and Australasia

Valery L. Feigin, MD, MSc, PhD,

Priya G. Parmar, MSc,

Suzanne Barker-Collo, PhD,

Derrick A. Bennett, PhD,

Craig S. Anderson, MD, PhD,

Amanda G. Thrift, BSci (Hons), PhD,

Birgitta Stegmayr, PhD,

Peter M. Rothwell, MD, PhD,

Maurice Giroud, MD, PhD,

Yannick Bejot, MD,

Phillip Carvil, MSc,

Rita Krishnamurthi, PhD,

Nikola Kasabov, PhD,

for the International Stroke Incidence Studies Data Pooling Project Collaborators

+Author Affiliations

From the National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences (V.L.F., P.G.P., R.K.) and Knowledge Engineering and Discovery Research Institute (N.K.), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand; School of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand (S.B.-C.); Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health (D.A.B.) and University Department of Clinical Neurology (P.M.R.), University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Neurological and Mental Health Division at the George Institute for Global Health, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (C.S.A.); Department of Medicine, Southern Clinical School, Monash University Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia (A.G.T.); Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden (B.S.); Service de Neurologie, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire, Dijon, France (M.G.); University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine of Dijon, EA 4183, University of Burgundy, Stroke Registry of Dijon (Inserm and Invs), Dijon, France (Y.B.); and Centre of Human Aerospace and Physiological Science, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom (P.C.).

Correspondence to Valery L. Feigin, MD, MSc, PhD, National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, School of Rehabilitation and Occupation Studies, Faculty of Health and Environmental Studies, Auckland University of Technology, AUT N Shore Campus, AA254, 90 Akoranga Dr, Northcote 0627, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. E-mail valery.feigin@aut.ac.nz

Abstract

Background and Purpose—Although the research linking cardiovascular disorders to geomagnetic activity is accumulating, robust evidence for the impact of geomagnetic activity on stroke occurrence is limited and controversial.

Methods—We used a time-stratified case-crossover study design to analyze individual participant and daily geomagnetic activity (as measured by Ap Index) data from several large population-based stroke incidence studies (with information on 11 453 patients with stroke collected during 16 031 764 person-years of observation) in New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden conducted between 1981 and 2004. Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results—Overall, geomagnetic storms (Ap Index 60+) were associated with 19% increase in the risk of stroke occurrence (95% CI, 11%–27%). The triggering effect of geomagnetic storms was most evident across the combined group of all strokes in those aged <65 by="" increasing="" risk="" stroke="" years="">50%: moderate geomagnetic storms (60–99 Ap Index) were associated with a 27% (95% CI, 8%–48%) increased risk of stroke occurrence, strong geomagnetic storms (100–149 Ap Index) with a 52% (95% CI, 19%–92%) increased risk, and severe/extreme geomagnetic storms (Ap Index 150+) with a 52% (95% CI, 19%–94%) increased risk (test for trend,P<2 style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; line-height: 0; margin: 0px; outline-style: none; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-align: inherit; top: -2px; word-wrap: break-word;" sup="">−16

Conclusions—Geomagnetic storms are associated with increased risk of stroke and should be considered along with other established risk factors. Our findings provide a framework to advance stroke prevention through future investigation of the contribution of geomagnetic factors to the risk of stroke occurrence and pathogenesis.

Key Words:

Received December 18, 2013.
Revision received March 10, 2014.
Accepted March 18, 2014.

https://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/early/2014/04/22/STROKEAHA.113.004577.abstract