Saturday, July 19, 2014

Research: Sleep loss degrades the blood-brain barrier, allowing toxins to invade and kill neurons. Here are three things to do immediately

Research: Sleep loss degrades the blood-brain barrier, allowing toxins to invade and kill neurons. Here are three things to do immediately
Saturday, July 19, 2014 by: Mike Bundrant

Tags: sleep deficiency, blood-brain barrier, brain health

 (NaturalNews) When researching why people sleep, researchers from the Mexican Metropolitan Autonomous University (UAM) have found that chronic sleep loss may cause neurotoxic molecules to be transported into the central nervous system.

Once in the central nervous system, these molecules interfere with the function of neurons.According to Beatriz Gomez Gonzalez, head of the scientific project, this occurs due to an alteration in the blood-brain barrier. This portion of the central nervous system is responsible for protecting the brain from neurotoxic agents.

However, when the brain is deprived of sleep, the joints vessels in the blood-brain barrier become degraded. This allows some toxic elements to cross the barrier and reach brain tissue.

Once inside the brain, some of these nerve agents may affect neuron function or even kill the neurons. For example, monosodium glutamate, a flavoring agent found in many processed foods, can overstimulate neurons, resulting in neuron death.

Furthermore, the researchers at UAM found that some medications, such as second-generation antihistamines may permeate into the brain tissue when the blood-brain barrier becomes weakened.

Manufacturers of second-generation antihistamines and antibiotic medications test their products to ensure they do not affect brain function. However, when the blood-brain barrier permeability has been affected by sleep deprivation, these chemicals may be able to impact the central nervous system, resulting in unusual effects such as behavioral changes, drowsiness, and even neuron death.

A second phenomenon that the UAM researchers found during the study that sleep deprivation also increased the number of pinocytotic vesicles in cells. This may also increase the risk of neurotoxic elements entering the brain tissue. According to the study, animals that had induced sleeplessness developed up to three times the vesicles compared to animals who had received a normal amount of sleep.


Three things to do immediately:

1. Limit intake of toxic elements in your diet! You may not be able to rid yourself of all toxins, but knowingly ingesting food filled with toxins is inviting a health problem.

2. Take supplements that inhibit toxins. Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has just released ground-breaking supplements that are proven in lab tests to eliminate food-born toxins, especially the highly dangerous heavy metals found in the so many common foods like rice.

Check out the new supplements here. What's so important about these particular supplements is that you take them with your meals to eliminate heavy metals as you digest food. Learn more.

3. Sleep better. Now, this is easy to suggest, but nearly impossible to achieve when your overactive brain won't cooperate late at night. If this is the case with you, then you very likely suffer from an overactive Default Mode Network (DMN).

The DMN is the brain's mental autopilot. When overactive, it churns out spinning or obsessive thoughts that cause stress, body tension and restlessness.

Under these circumstances, sleep is impossible. Learn to turn OFF your DMN through simple awareness exercises proven via fMRI scans to turn off the DMN, calming your mind and body. Check out the iNLP Center's Sleep Switch Program here.

Here's to your restful sleep and freedom from toxins...

Sources:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140610101316.htm
http://inlpcenter.org
http://toxindefense.org

About the author:
Watch the free video The AHA! Process: An End to Self-Sabotage and discover the lost keys to personal transformation and emotional well-being that have been suppressed by mainstream mental health for decades.

The information in this video has been called the missing link in mental health and personal development. In a world full of shallow, quick-fix techniques, second rate psychology and pharmaceutical takeovers, real solutions have become nearly impossible to find. Click here to watch the presentation that will turn your world upside down.

Mike Bundrant is co-founder of the iNLP Center and host of Mental Health Exposed, a Natural News Radio program.

Follow Mike on Facebook for daily personal development tips.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/046068_sleep_deficiency_blood-brain_barrier_brain_health.html?utm_content=buffer81e6d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer#ixzz384kceq1E
Posted by at No comments:

Help for electromagnetic sensitivity

Help for electromagnetic sensitivity

Posted: July 19th, 2014 | Author:  | Filed under: ElectroMagnetic Sensitivity, Water | No Comments »
Electro Sensitivity Cure
shared by Rob
To Whom it may concern
I have recently suffered from electromagnetic sensitivity but have also found the cure.
The problem is an imbalance/deficiency in the body’s electrolytes.
An electrolyte is the medical/scientific term for salts, specifically ions. Ions are atoms molecules in which the total number of electrons are not equal to the total number of protons, giving the atom a net positive or negative electrical charge.
Your body fluids, blood, plasma, interstitial fluid (fluid between cells) and the fluid within every cell, contains different types of electolytes.Our bodies electrolytes are as follows:
Our bodies electrolytes are as follows:
sodium (Na+)
potassium (K+)
chloride (Cl-)
calcium (Ca2+)
magnesium (Mg2+)
bicarbonate (HCO3-) (This made within the body itself)
phosphate (PO42-)
sulfate (SO42-)
Electrolytes are important because they are what our cells (especially nerve, heart, muscle) use to maintain voltages across their cell membranes and to carry electrical impulses (nerve impulses, muscle contractions) across themselves and to other cells.
The electrical magnetic charge from iPad and iPhone etc will find the line of least resistance within our bodies, the nervous system, and a build up of electrical charge in the nerves and brain tissues can cause pain.
Also, our kidneys work to keep the electrolyte concentrations in our blood constant despite changes in our body. For example, when we exercise heavily, we lose electrolytes in our sweat, particularly sodium and potassium. These electrolytes must be replaced to keep the electrolyte concentrations of our body fluids constant. So, many sports drinks have sodium chloride or potassium chloride added to them. They also have sugar and flavourings to provide your body with extra energy and to make the drink taste better.
You are what you eat so eat what you are. Below are the top 16 elements by % that make up our bodies.
Element %
Oxygen 65
Carbon 18
Hydrogen 10
Nitrogen 3
Calcium 1.4
Phosphorus 1.1
Potassium 0.25
Sulphur 0.25
Sodium 0.15
Chlorine 0.15
Magnesium 0.05
Iron* 0.006
Fluorine 0.0037
Zinc 0.0032
Silicon 0.002
Rubidium 0.00046
After Water, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, the next top seven elements are all electrolytes. Here are their % by volume:
Element %
Calcium 40
Phosphorus 33
Potassium 8
Sulphur 8
Sodium 5
Chlorine 5
Magnesium 2
I have been taking the above elements since I took the salt, which literally dissolved the pains away within hours, (just like a dose of salts). I then bought different electrolyte products; here are the ones I think have been most helpful.
Maldon salt, most supermarkets. Contains Sodium and chlorine. (dissolve in water)
Lo Salt – from any shop. Contains potassium and sodium. (dissolve in water)
Epsom salts – Boots. Contains magnesium and sulphur. (dissolve in water)
Phosphorous tablets – On line from Welwda.
Calcium tablets – Holland and Barrett.
MicroMins – On line from NutriPLUS. Contains Magnesium, Chloride, Sulphate, Potassium and Sodium.
ZERO Highs sports drink – Holland and barrett. Contains Magnesium, Chloride, Sulphate, Potassium and Sodium.
I always take them with plenty of water after lunch or dinner. I’m still avoiding use of iPad or iPhone, but am able to use them without much of a problem, but am still occasionally noticing some effects from them, but nowhere near as much as before.
WATER & SALT – CURE PAIN & PREVENT CANCER – 1-1
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, July 18, 2014

Citizen group opposes cell tower near school

Citizen group opposes cell tower near school

antennaWEBA proposal to build a 125-foot telecommunications tower next to the Oak-Land Junior High School in Lake Elmo has stirred up opposition from a local parents’ group. The Stillwater Schools Community Action Network (SSCAN) has begun an online petition that urges the school board to reconsider its plan to construct the tower near children, citing safety concerns regarding electromagnetic fields emitted by cellular telephones and telecommunications towers. The school board will hear Verizon’s tower proposal during its July 17 business meeting.
“We are concerned about the exposure of EMF (electromagnetic fields) and the health risks they pose to our children, our staff and school community,” an email sent on behalf of the SSCAN group said. “Safety should be a top priority, and we believe that cell towers have no place on or near school grounds where they can potentially harm our children and community.”
During the June 12 school board meeting, SSCAN member Sean O’Loughlin spoke during the meeting’s public comment.
“My understanding is that construction on this project would be completed before school begins again in the fall,” O’Loughlin said. “It is my personal opinion, based on my personal research, that any harm to students and staff from radio frequency radiation far outweighs any financial gain the district might receive.”
Prior to the preparation of a proposal presentation to the school board, the Lake Elmo City Council approved the project on May 6 within its city ordinances.
The tower, presented by builders Faulk and Foster Real Estate on behalf of Verizon Wireless, proposes that Verizon lease approximately 1,000 square feet of the school’s property, located at 820 Manning Ave. N. in Lake Elmo, to house the tower and an accessory building inside a fence.
In order to construct the tower, a conditional use permit was issued by the city. The tower would fit into the comprehensive plan of the city, and would be placed within the public facility zoning district as defined by city code. The proposed tower is the first new facility that has been submitted under the city’s new wireless communications ordinance adopted in 2009.
During the meeting, there were no members of the public to speak against the proposed project.
As part of application process to issue the conditional use permit, Verizon Wireless needed to determine that the tower is necessary to provide cellular coverage. The city worked with Garrett Lysiak, P.E., OWL Engineering and EMC Test Labs, Inc. to analyze the construction need.
“There no existing towers in the area that could compare to the tower they are planning to build,” Lysiak said after searching FAA and FCC databases that catalog the current cellular towers.
During his May 6 presentation, Lysiak said a the major concern some have is the danger of radiation coming from the tower. Because the tower will be placed on school property, this was also a concern to the council.
“Using the data submitted by Verizon Communications, I preformed a ‘worst-case’ radiation analysis to determine the amount of RF energy that would be present at the base of the tower,” Lysiak said. “I was able to determine that the maximum level of RF radiation reaching the ground at the base of the tower is less than the 10 percent of ANSI standard value and is not classified as a radiation hazard.”
The city council approved the conditional use permit unanimously during the May 6 meeting.
During his comments at the June 12 school board meeting, O’Loughlin challenged the analysis done by Lysiak, because the information used was supplied by Verizon Wireless. O’Loughlin called the study a conflict of interest, because the information does not come from an outside source.
O’Loughlin and the SSCAN petition cite studies that have suggested that chronic low levels of RF radiation can cause cancer and other health problems. Other countries throughout the world have much stricter regulation of RF radiation, and some ban cellular towers within 1,500 feet of a school building.
Financial impact
The installation of the tower can have a large financial benefit to the school district. Currently, the school district operates two cell towers on property owned by the district; one at Stillwater Junior High and one at JC Fields in Stillwater.
According to the presentation prepared for the school board meeting by Dennis Bloom, director of operations for Stillwater Area Schools, Stillwater Junior High School has a 90-foot tower that leases 510 square feet of land and is located near the ball fields. It has one carrier antenna on the tower, and generates $1,119 per month.
There is also a 100-foot tower next to JC Fields that occupies 1,920 square feet. It has two carrier antennas, and generates $2,025 per month. The proposed Oak-Land Junior High lease will be a 125-foot tower and lease 1,080 square feet of land. There is space for up to three carriers. According to the terms of the lease, the first carrier, Verizon, will be required to pay $1,800 per month for five years, with the option for four additional five-year lease agreements. An additional carrier would have the option of also using the tower with a lease term of $500 per month or 50 percent of the rent.
In total, the revenue generated from the three cell towers could be as high as $5,944 per month, or $71,328 per year. The funds generated from the wireless communications contracts are used for athletic facilities and maintenance, Bloom said.
The school board will hear the first presentation on the Oak-Land Junior High School cell tower project during the July 17 meeting, and action on the project is expected Aug. 14.
As of July 14, there were 29 signatures on the Stillwater School Community Action Network’s “No Cell Tower on School Property” petition.
Contact Alicia Lebens at alicia.lebens@ecm-inc.com
Posted by at No comments:

Kids more vulnerable to WIFI Microwave Toxicity

Kids more vulnerable to WIFI Microwave Toxicity

Posted by  on July 18, 2014
Dr. Weeks’ Comment:   I greatly appreciate Dr. Joel Moskowitz’s excellent website on electrical pollution. He is worth subscribing to this list serve.  Here he writes about children being more vulnerable to electrical pollution!  I have already treated far too many people who had enjoyed the conveniences of WIFI and iPads (on the pregnant belly!!!!)  resulting in pediatric cancers.  Get informed about  electrical pollution and remember that we eventually pay for our conveniences!  Especially we need to protect our kids from the cancer causing effects of these electrical devices.

Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences

L. Lloyd Morgan, Santosh Kesari, Devra Lee Davis. Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmau.2014.06.005. In press. Published online Jul 15, 2014.
Highlights
• Children absorb more microwave radiation (MWR) than adults.• MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen.
• The fetus is in greater danger than children from exposure to MWR.
• The legal exposure limits have remained unchanged for decades.
• Cellphone manuals warnings and the 20 cm rule for tablets/laptops violate the “normal operating position” regulation.

Abstract

Computer simulation using MRI scans of children is the only possible way to determine the microwave radiation (MWR) absorbed in specific tissues in children. Children absorb more MWR than adults because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner and their relative size is smaller. MWR from wireless devices has been declared a possible human carcinogen. Children are at greater risk than adults when exposed to any carcinogen. Because the average latency time between first exposure and diagnosis of a tumor can be decades, tumors induced in children may not be diagnosed until well into adulthood. The fetus is particularly vulnerable to MWR. MWR exposure can result in degeneration of the protective myelin sheath that surrounds brain neurons. MWR-emitting toys are being sold for use by young infants and toddlers. Digital dementia has been reported in school age children. A case study has shown when cellphones are placed in teenage girls’ bras multiple primary breast cancer develop beneath where the phones are placed. MWR exposure limits have remained unchanged for 19 years. All manufacturers of smartphones have warnings which describe the minimum distance at which phone must be kept away from users in order to not exceed the present legal limits for exposure to MWR. The exposure limit for laptop computers and tablets is set when devices are tested 20 cm away from the body. Belgium, France, India and other technologically sophisticated governments are passing laws and/or issuing warnings about children’s use of wireless devices.
Excerpts

1.4. Exposure limits

In 1996, the FCC adopted the IEEE 1991[11] standard with some details from the 1986 NCRP Report [12] as exposure limits in the United States. Nineteen years after the FCC exposure limits were published, based on documents published 24 and 29 years previously, the legal exposure limit has remained unchanged. Yet during these decades an enormous body of scientific studies was published reporting risk well below the legal exposure limit.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) is an industry professional organization, as is the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). Neither organization had medical or public health expertise.
In European countries and a few other countries, the exposure limits are based on the 1998 “Guidelines” of the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) [13]. These “Guidelines” were based on publications from 1984, 1987, 1991, and 1993 [page 494]. That is the “Guidelines” were based on publications up to 31 years ago, Similar to the IEEE and NCRP, ICNIRP is an organization without medical or public health expertise. It is accountable to no government and its funding sources are not transparent.

1.4.1. The 19 year old IEEE and 17 year old ICNIRP exposure limits are based on a false premise

The exposure limits are premised on an assumption that the only biological effect from MWR exposure is acute (short-term) heating sufficient to cause tissue damage. There is no consideration of the effects from chronic (long-term) exposures. There are many scientific papers that report biological impacts tied with non-thermal (no measurable temperature change) effects. Indeed, the 480-page IARC Monograph 102 that documents the science that led to the declaration that MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen is a virtual compendium of such papers [14].

1.4.2. FCC compliance requirements do not comport with current testing systems

The FCC requires “For purposes of evaluating compliance with localized SAR guidelines, portable devices should be tested or evaluated based on normal operating positions or conditions” [15]. But phones are not tested in pants or shirt pockets. As a result every cellphone manual has warnings that the phone should be kept at various distances from the body otherwise the human exposure limits can be exceeded …

4.3. Increasing brain cancer incidence

There are studies showing an increased risk of brain cancer from wireless phone use. It is a current problem. The worst brain cancer, glioblastoma, has increased in the United States, and Denmark. Brain cancer incidence has increased in Australia in recent years. These results are based on brain cancer incidence from each country’s cancer registries.
A United States study examined 3 cancer registries (Los Angeles County, California and SEER 122) [42]. It examined incidence rates between years 1992–2006 and reported the Average Percent Change (APC) during those years. “RESULTS: Increased AAIRs [Age-Adjusted Incidence Rates] of frontal (APC +2.4–3.0%, p ≤ 0.001) and temporal (APC +1.3–2.3%, p ≤ 0.027) lobe glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) tumors were observed across all registries … The AAIR of cerebellar GBMs increased according to CCR (APC +11.9%, p < 0.001).”
The Danish Cancer Registry issued a press release that stated, “The number of men who are diagnosed with the most malignant form of brain cancer (glioblastoma), has almost doubled over the past ten years” [43].
The Australian study reported, “an overall significant increase in primary malignant brain tumors was observed over the study period from 2000 to 2008 (APC, 3.9; 95%CI, 2.4–5.4), particularly since 2004 (overall AAPC, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.6–5.2)” [44].

5. Conclusions

The risk to children and adolescent from exposure to microwave radiating devices is considerable. Adults have a smaller but very real risk, as well.
  1. Children absorb greater amount of microwave radiation (MWR) than adults;
  2. MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen as is carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, DDT, lead, nickel, phenobarbital, styrene, diesel fuel, and gasoline. It seems clear that we would not expose children to these other agents, so why would we expose children to microwave radiation?
  3. Fetuses are even more vulnerable than children. Therefore pregnant women should avoid exposing their fetus to microwave radiation.
  4. Adolescent girls and women should not place cellphones in their bras or in hijabs.
  5. Cellphone manual warnings make clear an overexposure problem exists.
  6. Wireless devices are radio transmitters, not toys. Selling toys that use them should be banned.
  7. Government warnings have been issued but most of the public are unaware of such warnings.
  8. Exposure limits are inadequate and should be revised such that they are adequate.
–
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
Center: http://cfch.berkeley.edu
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website:              http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:            http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:    http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc
Posted by at No comments:

Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences

Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences


L. Lloyd Morgan, Santosh Kesari, Devra Lee Davis. Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmau.2014.06.005. In press. Published online Jul 15, 2014.

Highlights
• Children absorb more microwave radiation (MWR) than adults.

• MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen.

• The fetus is in greater danger than children from exposure to MWR.

• The legal exposure limits have remained unchanged for decades.

• Cellphone manuals warnings and the 20 cm rule for tablets/laptops violate the “normal operating position” regulation.

Abstract

Computer simulation using MRI scans of children is the only possible way to determine the microwave radiation (MWR) absorbed in specific tissues in children. Children absorb more MWR than adults because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner and their relative size is smaller. MWR from wireless devices has been declared a possible human carcinogen. Children are at greater risk than adults when exposed to any carcinogen. Because the average latency time between first exposure and diagnosis of a tumor can be decades, tumors induced in children may not be diagnosed until well into adulthood. The fetus is particularly vulnerable to MWR. MWR exposure can result in degeneration of the protective myelin sheath that surrounds brain neurons. MWR-emitting toys are being sold for use by young infants and toddlers. Digital dementia has been reported in school age children. A case study has shown when cellphones are placed in teenage girls’ bras multiple primary breast cancer develop beneath where the phones are placed. MWR exposure limits have remained unchanged for 19 years. All manufacturers of smartphones have warnings which describe the minimum distance at which phone must be kept away from users in order to not exceed the present legal limits for exposure to MWR. The exposure limit for laptop computers and tablets is set when devices are tested 20 cm away from the body. Belgium, France, India and other technologically sophisticated governments are passing laws and/or issuing warnings about children's use of wireless devices.

http://bit.ly/UfQGcs

Excerpts

1.4. Exposure limits

In 1996, the FCC adopted the IEEE 1991[11] standard with some details from the 1986 NCRP Report [12] as exposure limits in the United States. Nineteen years after the FCC exposure limits were published, based on documents published 24 and 29 years previously, the legal exposure limit has remained unchanged. Yet during these decades an enormous body of scientific studies was published reporting risk well below the legal exposure limit.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) is an industry professional organization, as is the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). Neither organization had medical or public health expertise.
In European countries and a few other countries, the exposure limits are based on the 1998 “Guidelines” of the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) [13]. These “Guidelines” were based on publications from 1984, 1987, 1991, and 1993 [page 494]. That is the “Guidelines” were based on publications up to 31 years ago, Similar to the IEEE and NCRP, ICNIRP is an organization without medical or public health expertise. It is accountable to no government and its funding sources are not transparent.

1.4.1. The 19 year old IEEE and 17 year old ICNIRP exposure limits are based on a false premise

The exposure limits are premised on an assumption that the only biological effect from MWR exposure is acute (short-term) heating sufficient to cause tissue damage. There is no consideration of the effects from chronic (long-term) exposures. There are many scientific papers that report biological impacts tied with non-thermal (no measurable temperature change) effects. Indeed, the 480-page IARC Monograph 102 that documents the science that led to the declaration that MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen is a virtual compendium of such papers [14].

1.4.2. FCC compliance requirements do not comport with current testing systems

The FCC requires “For purposes of evaluating compliance with localized SAR guidelines, portable devices should be tested or evaluated based on normal operating positions or conditions” [15]. But phones are not tested in pants or shirt pockets. As a result every cellphone manual has warnings that the phone should be kept at various distances from the body otherwise the human exposure limits can be exceeded ...

4.3. Increasing brain cancer incidence

There are studies showing an increased risk of brain cancer from wireless phone use. It is a current problem. The worst brain cancer, glioblastoma, has increased in the United States, and Denmark. Brain cancer incidence has increased in Australia in recent years. These results are based on brain cancer incidence from each country's cancer registries.
A United States study examined 3 cancer registries (Los Angeles County, California and SEER 122) [42]. It examined incidence rates between years 1992–2006 and reported the Average Percent Change (APC) during those years. “RESULTS: Increased AAIRs [Age-Adjusted Incidence Rates] of frontal (APC +2.4–3.0%, p ≤ 0.001) and temporal (APC +1.3–2.3%,p ≤ 0.027) lobe glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) tumors were observed across all registries … The AAIR of cerebellar GBMs increased according to CCR (APC +11.9%, p < 0.001).”
The Danish Cancer Registry issued a press release that stated, “The number of men who are diagnosed with the most malignant form of brain cancer (glioblastoma), has almost doubled over the past ten years” [43].
The Australian study reported, “an overall significant increase in primary malignant brain tumors was observed over the study period from 2000 to 2008 (APC, 3.9; 95%CI, 2.4–5.4), particularly since 2004 (overall AAPC, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.6–5.2)” [44].

5. Conclusions

The risk to children and adolescent from exposure to microwave radiating devices is considerable. Adults have a smaller but very real risk, as well.
  1. Children absorb greater amount of microwave radiation (MWR) than adults;
  2. MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen as is carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, DDT, lead, nickel, phenobarbital, styrene, diesel fuel, and gasoline. It seems clear that we would not expose children to these other agents, so why would we expose children to microwave radiation?
  3. Fetuses are even more vulnerable than children. Therefore pregnant women should avoid exposing their fetus to microwave radiation.
  4. Adolescent girls and women should not place cellphones in their bras or in hijabs.
  5. Cellphone manual warnings make clear an overexposure problem exists.
  6. Wireless devices are radio transmitters, not toys. Selling toys that use them should be banned.
  7. Government warnings have been issued but most of the public are unaware of such warnings.
  8. Exposure limits are inadequate and should be revised such that they are adequate.
--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
Center: http://cfch.berkeley.edu

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:              http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:            http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:    http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Electromagnetic Radiation Could Harm the Yelm Community

Electromagnetic Radiation Could Harm the Yelm Community

Posted: Thursday, July 17, 2014 3:46 pm
Editor,
Everybody loves the convenience of their wireless technology: cellphones, iPads, Wi-Fi, smart meters and so on. All that portable information and communication with no cables or strings, right?
Nothing to see, therefore nothing to worry about. Well, sadly, this is not the case, as is revealed by the accumulating research data too numerous to list here but easily accessed by a simple Internet search on the effects of unnatural electromagnetic radiation (EMR), i.e. emissions from telecommunications transmissions, on people, plants and animals.
As a medical doctor who specialized in the electromagnetic effects on the human body, I am very familiar with the potential harmful effects. The human body and all living things are electromagnetic systems, the healthy functioning of which can be interfered with by external electromagnetic radiation, all the more so with increasing strength, frequency and duration of exposure. The list of health issues found to be increased in studies on people working or living within or near EMRs is wide ranging. Sleep disturbances, nervous disease, leukemia, lymphomas and other cancers — not to mention those with EMR hypersensitivity whose lives are ruined in the effort to try to isolate themselves from its effects — are all examples. As for the environment, for instance, EMRs can affect bees and bird flight and migration as it is thought to interfere with their brain’s homing ability.
With expansion of wireless technology, I am concerned that we are becoming increasingly bathed 24/7 in EMRs not natural to our environment. In addition, there is valid evidence that children are especially susceptible, by virtue of their thinner skull bones and developing brains. Are we considering all of this enough in our implementation and use of wireless technology? The fact that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have prohibited the use of human health effects as argument against the placement of cell towers, would indicate that we are not. Yet, the FCC will consider such negative impacts as unsightly view, environmental and livestock damage.
At least we can refrain from using our personal wireless gadgets. If we wish, we can mitigate by unplugging the Wi-Fi, cellphone and remote, but not a cell tower that emits non-stop day and night and often with several transmitters for each telecom company.
For all of the above reasons, I chose to live in a location where there is no cellphone coverage and no cell towers. Now that may be about to change. The proposed new cell tower at Weyerhaeuser Road (parcel #23505000000, Yelm) should it go ahead, will expose me, my loved ones, neighbors, animals and environment to the unwanted risks of cell tower wireless radiation.
Cornelia O’Leary, M.D.
Yelm
Posted by at No comments:

New book: An Electronic Silent Spring

New book: An Electronic Silent Spring

An Electronic Silent Spring –

Society has received profound benefits from electronics. We have developed and marketed electronic technologies [that emit electromagnetic radiation (EMR)] without recognition or regulation of its effects on human health or wildlife.

Katie Singer’s book, An Electronic Silent Spring, and this website are dedicated to encouraging recognition that EMR can harm people and wildlife;

to protective solutions for the public health and our ecosystem.

While they operate, mobile phones, mobile phone chargers, iPads, cellular antennas, Wi-Fi, compact fluorescent lights, transformers and “smart” utility meters emit electromagnetic radiation (EMR) at frequencies and amplitudes that are not found in nature. An Electronic Silent Spring describes how wildlife and peoples’ health are affected.


Read the post here.
Posted by at No comments:

Cluster of suicides at Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology

Cluster of suicides at Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology


Ladies and Gentlemen,

 Co. Galway on the Atlantic coast of Ireland is the site of the campus of the National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG). There is much research in computing and communications funded by the Partnership for Advanced Computing in Europe (PRACE) and €8.1 million in EU funding for telecommunications under the DISCUS research communications project coordinated by CTVR, the national research centre at Trinity College Dublin. NUIG also partners with Stanford in the United States in what they call the BioInnovate Program to investigate the development of medical devices.

 The point of mentioning these programs is that much experimental work is being done in the Galway region.

 Some time ago concern was raised over projects using undersea microwave technology.

 Irish residents are aware that public discussion of microwave technology and the subject of electromagnetic technology is not encouraged due to economic considerations.

In sympathy,

John Weigel

Cluster of suicides at Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology

GALWAY residents took to the streets on Sunday to protest at what they claim is the Government’s inaction over an ‘epidemic’ of suicides.


Note: Sources close to the events reveal that there have been 361 unsubstantiated suicides by individuals related to the student and staff GMIT victims since January 2014.
Posted by at No comments:

Dariusz Leszczynski on Australia's "independent" audit of smart meters

Dariusz Leszczynski on Australia's "independent" audit of smart meters


From Dariusz’s blog Between A Rock And A Hard Place

Australia’s independent audit of smart meters – do not have any hopes…

Excerpt:

On July 15, 2014, Australian news site news.com.au published a brief story: ‘Reports of illness prompt audit of smart meter radiation‘. Those, who have any hopes that this audit will help to resolve the problem of smart meters and reports of illness should lose their hopes immediately. It is very likely that nothing will change. Smart meters will be pronounced perfectly safe because emitted radiation levels are below current safety standards.

SNIP

This is and will be the answer to anyone who now, or in the near future, will question safety of smart meters or any EMF-emitting device – safety standards are met.

SNIP

Read the post here.
Posted by at No comments:

Dr. Sinatra on Cordless Phones: "Caution! This is The Most Toxic Piece of Equipment in Your Home!"

Dr. Sinatra on Cordless Phones: "Caution! This is The Most Toxic Piece of Equipment in Your Home!"

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences

Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences

DOI: 10.1016/j.jmau.2014.06.005
Open Access funded by The Saudi Society of Microscopes
Under a Creative Commons license

Highlights

•
Children absorb more microwave radiation (MWR) than adults.
•
MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen.
•
The fetus is in greater danger than children from exposure to MWR.
•
The legal exposure limits have remained unchanged for decades.
•
Cellphone manuals warnings and the 20 cm rule for tablets/laptops violate the “normal operating position” regulation.

Abstract

Computer simulation using MRI scans of children is the only possible way to determine the microwave radiation (MWR) absorbed in specific tissues in children. Children absorb more MWR than adults because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner and their relative size is smaller. MWR from wireless devices has been declared a possible human carcinogen. Children are at greater risk than adults when exposed to any carcinogen. Because the average latency time between first exposure and diagnosis of a tumor can be decades, tumors induced in children may not be diagnosed until well into adulthood. The fetus is particularly vulnerable to MWR. MWR exposure can result in degeneration of the protective myelin sheath that surrounds brain neurons. MWR-emitting toys are being sold for use by young infants and toddlers. Digital dementia has been reported in school age children. A case study has shown when cellphones are placed in teenage girls’ bras multiple primary breast cancer develop beneath where the phones are placed. MWR exposure limits have remained unchanged for 19 years. All manufacturers of smartphones have warnings which describe the minimum distance at which phone must be kept away from users in order to not exceed the present legal limits for exposure to MWR. The exposure limit for laptop computers and tablets is set when devices are tested 20 cm away from the body. Belgium, France, India and other technologically sophisticated governments are passing laws and/or issuing warnings about children's use of wireless devices.

Abbreviations

  • MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; 
  • MWR, microwave radiation; 
  • CNS, central nervous system; 
  • FDTD,finite-difference, time-domain; 
  • GBM, glioblastoma multiforme (also called glioblastoma); 
  • cm, centimeter

Keywords

  • Tumors; 
  • Myelin; 
  • Carcinogen; 
  • Fetus; 
  • Children; 
  • Latency

1. Introduction

Here we discuss: how the amount of MWR can be calculated, children's greater absorption of MWR compared to adults’ adsorption, MWR's listing as a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen, the existing legal limits for human exposure to MWR, and that the existing legal limits do not incorporate the greater exposure to children.

1.1. Computer simulation

The finite-difference, time-domain (FDTD) computer algorithm has been the best way to simulate the amount of absorbed MWR in tissues for many decades. In 1997 the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) stated, “Currently, the finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) algorithm is the most widely accepted computational method for SAR modeling. This method adapts very well to the tissue models that are usually derived from MRI or CT scans. FDTD method offers great flexibility in modeling the inhomogeneous structures of anatomical tissues and organs. The FDTD method has been used in many far-field electromagnetic applications during the last three decades. With recent advances in computer technology, it has become possible to apply this method to near-field applications for evaluating handsets” [1].

1.2. Children's greater absorption of MWR

There are multiple studies showing that children absorb more MWR than adults. In 1996 a study reported that the absorbed MWR penetrated proportionally deeper into the brain of children age 5 and 10 compared to adults’ brains [2].
In 2008 Joe Wiart, a senior researcher for French telecom and Orange reported that the brain tissue of children absorbed about two times more MWR than adults’ brain tissue [3].
A 2009 study reported the CNS absorption by children is “significantly larger (∼2×) because the RF [MWR] source is closer and skin and bone layers are thinner”, and “bone marrow exposure strongly varies with age and is significantly larger for children (∼10×)” [4].
In 2010, Andreas Christ and team reported children's hippocampus and hypothalamus absorbs 1.6–3.1 times higher and the cerebellum absorbs 2.5 times higher MWR compared to adults’; children's bone marrow absorbs 10 times higher MWR radiation than in adults, and children's eyes absorb higher MWR than adults[5]. These calculations were based on porcine measurements taken from sacrificed animals.

1.3. Microwave radiation is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen

After 30 experts from 14 countries reviewed the science, the World Health Organization's (WHO's) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared that RF-EMF [MWR] is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen [6]. It was a near unanimous declaration (one dissenter).
Including MWR, there are 285 agents listed by WHO's IARC as Class 2B carcinogens [7]. Exposures to almost all of these agents are regulated. Some of the commonly recognized agents are: carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, DDT, lead, nickel, phenobarbital, styrene, diesel fuel, and gasoline.
Like these other Class 2B Carcinogens, should anyone, particularly children, be exposed to MWR?

1.3.1. Children are at increased risk when exposed to carcinogens

Children are at greater risk from exposure to carcinogens than adults, and the younger the child, the higher the risk [8], [9] and [10].

1.4. Exposure limits

In 1996, the FCC adopted the IEEE 1991[11] standard with some details from the 1986 NCRP Report [12] as exposure limits in the United States. Nineteen years after the FCC exposure limits were published, based on documents published 24 and 29 years previously, the legal exposure limit has remained unchanged. Yet during these decades an enormous body of scientific studies was published reporting risk well below the legal exposure limit.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) is an industry professional organization, as is the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). Neither organization had medical or public health expertise.
In European countries and a few other countries, the exposure limits are based on the 1998 “Guidelines” of the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) [13]. These “Guidelines” were based on publications from 1984, 1987, 1991, and 1993 [page 494]. That is the “Guidelines” were based on publications up to 31 years ago, Similar to the IEEE and NCRP, ICNIRP is an organization without medical or public health expertise. It is accountable to no government and its funding sources are not transparent.

1.4.1. The 19 year old IEEE and 17 year old ICNIRP exposure limits are based on a false premise

The exposure limits are premised on an assumption that the only biological effect from MWR exposure is acute (short-term) heating sufficient to cause tissue damage. There is no consideration of the effects from chronic (long-term) exposures. There are many scientific papers that report biological impacts tied with non-thermal (no measurable temperature change) effects. Indeed, the 480-page IARC Monograph 102 that documents the science that led to the declaration that MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen is a virtual compendium of such papers [14].

1.4.2. FCC compliance requirements do not comport with current testing systems

The FCC requires “For purposes of evaluating compliance with localized SAR guidelines, portable devices should be tested or evaluated based on normal operating positions or conditions” [15]. But phones are not tested in pants or shirt pockets. As a result every cellphone manual has warnings that the phone should be kept at various distances from the body otherwise the human exposure limits can be exceeded.
Here are two of many examples:
(1)
The BlackBerry Torch 9800 Smart Phone warns, “keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.98 in. (25 mm) from your body (including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers).” “Lower abdomen” is an oblique reference to testicles and “abdomen of pregnant women” is an oblique reference to the fetus.
(2)
The iPhone 5's manual is embedded within the phone: Users must go to “Settings,” and scroll down to “General,” then scroll to the bottom to “About,” go to “Legal,” scroll down to “RF [MWR] Exposure” where it reads, “To reduce exposure to RF energy, use a hands-free option, such as the built-in speakerphone, the supplied headphones, or other similar accessories. Carry iPhone at least 10 mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the as-tested [exposure limit] levels.”

1.4.3. There is a 20 cm distance rule for tablets and laptop computers

“For purposes of these requirements mobile1 devices are defined by the FCC as transmitters designed to be used in other than fixed locations and to generally be used in such a way that a separation distance of at least 20 cm is normally maintained between radiating structures and the body of the user or nearby persons” [16].
Clearly, this 20 cm rule contradicts the “normal operating position” regulation in the description “a separation distance of at least 20 cm is normally maintained.” Indeed, “laptop” computer directly implies that it is to be placed on a lap which is not 20 cm distant from the user.
The growing use of tablets by young children in schools contradicts these normal tested conditions as well, as these children have shorter arms that do not allow them to hold devices 20 cm from their bodies.

2. Materials and methods

We have performed a review of the peer-reviewed cellphone exposure epidemiology from 2009 to 2014, and cellphone dosimetry since the 1970s from a previous paper [17], along with relevant governmental and other policy documents, manufacturers’ manuals and similar documents.

3. Results

3.1. Early development

Here we present evidence of harmful effects from exposure to MWR during early developmental stages both in animals and in humans.

3.1.1. Fetal exposures

A study from Yale University School of Medicine exposed mice in utero to MWR [18]. The study reported that these mice were hyperactive and had impaired memory “due to altered neuronal developmental programming. Exposed mice had dose-responsive impaired glutamatergic synaptic transmission onto layer V pyramidal neurons of the prefrontal cortex.” During pregnancy the mice were irradiated by a cellphone positioned above each cage positioned over the feeding bottle at a distance of 4.5–22.3 cm from each mouse depending on the location of the mouse within the cage. Controls were under the same condition but the phone was not active. The observed effects were similar to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children.
A Turkish study reported on a 900 MHz in utero exposure of rats [19]. “The results showed that prenatal EMF exposure caused a decrease in the number of granule cells in the dentate gyrus of the rats (p < 0.01). This suggests that prenatal exposure to a 900 MHz EMF affects the development of the dentate gyrus granule cells in the rat hippocampus.”
A Chinese study investigated effects of MWR emitted by cellphones on rat CNS, in vitro (cortical neuronal cells) and in vivo (rat's brain) [20]. Neuronal cells had a significantly higher death rate at power densities of 0.05 mW/cm2 and above. In vivo results show increased apoptosis with DNA fragmentation.

3.1.2. Myelination

A myelin sheath covering neurons acts as an insulation of the electrical activity of neurons. In human embryos, the first layer develops from mid-gestation to 2 years of age and continues into adolescence [21]. Myelination of the brain is not complete until early adulthood.
There are two studies with reported degeneration of the myelin sheath after MWR exposure:
A 1972 study from Poland reported myelin degeneration and glial cell proliferation in guinea pigs and rabbits from a 3 GHz exposure [22].
In 1977 Switzer & Mitchell reported a 2.45 GHz exposure in rats increased myelin degeneration in rat brains at 6 weeks after exposure. They concluded “The results of our study and related investigations by others indicated that exposures to low-intensity MW irradiation can result both in transient and in long-term structural anomalies in CNS tissue and may result in various hematologic irregularities” [23].

3.2. Children and adolescents

Aydin et al. in a study of cellphone use by children and adolescents (median age 13 years), reported a significant risk of brain cancer and a significant exposure–response relationship for >2.8 years since first cellphone subscription, OR = 2.15, CI = 1.07–4.29, p-trend = 0.001 for increasing risk with increasing time since first subscription with operator recorded use data (billing records) [24]. Yet the study's conclusion states, “The absence of an exposure–response relationship either in terms of the amount of mobile phone use … argues against a causal association.” It is unclear why the conclusion directly contradicts the published results. The study was funded in part by cellphone companies.
A Swedish study reported when first cellphone use began as a teenager or younger there was a significant ipsilateral risk of brain cancer, OR = 7.8, CI = 2.2–28, p < 0.01, and an almost identical ipsilateral risk from cordless phone use, OR = 7.9, CI = 2.5–25, p < 0.001 [9].
A Korean study found risks for ADHD in first grade (ages 7–8) children and followed them to ages 12–13 [25]. “The ADHD symptom risk associated with mobile phone use for voice calls but the association was limited to children exposed to relatively high [blood] lead [levels].” With an average time per cellphone call of ½ to <1 1="" and="" call="" ci="" em="" for="" min="" minutes="" nbsp="" or="" per="" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">p
-trend = 0.02. For children playing games for 3+ minutes/day a significant risk for ADHD, OR = 1.94, CI = 1.30–2.89,p < 0.001, and p-trend < 0.001 in the lower blood lead level group.
Elsewhere it has been shown the low-level exposures to MWR increases the permeability of the blood–brain barrier [26], [27] and [28]. This suggests children exposed to lead who use cellphone might have increased blood lead levels in the brain.

3.2.1. Breast cancers resulting from placement of cellphones in bras

A case study reported 4 women who placed cellphones in their bras. Two were diagnosed at age 21, with one who had begun placing her cellphone in her bra at age 15. This resulted in multiple primary breast cancers immediately beneath where the cellphone were placed [29].

3.2.2. Parotid gland tumors

The parotid gland is a large salivary gland in the cheek immediately next to where a cellphone is held to the ear.
A Chinese study reported statistically significant increased risks of 10- to 30-fold [30]. With more than 10 years since first use of a cellphone, the risk of epithelial parotid gland cancer, OR = 10.631, CI = 5.306–21.300, p < 10−10; similarly the risk for mucoepidermoid carcinoma, OR = 20.72, CI = 9.379–45.821,p < 10−13, and for average daily use of >3.5 h, OR = 30.255, CI = 10.799–90.456, p < 10−10.
An Israeli Interphone study found significant risk of parotid gland tumors [31]. “For ipsilateral use, the odds ratios in the highest category of cumulative number of calls and call time without use of hands-free devices were 1.58 (95% confidence interval: 1.11, 2.24) and 1.49 (95% confidence interval: 1.05, 2.13), respectively.”
Another Israeli study showed that among the 3 salivary glands, the only increase was the parotid gland [32]. “The total number of parotid gland cancers in Israel increased 4-fold from 1970 to 2006 … whereas two other salivary gland cancers remained stable.” Fig. 1 illustrates the enormous increase in parotid gland tumors relative to other salivary gland tumors.
Full-size image (26 K)
Fig. 1. 
Increase of parotid gland tumors relative to other salivary gland tumors in Israel.
Figure options
A newspaper in Israel reported “[S]alivary gland cancer, which researchers suspect to be linked to cellphone use, was disproportionately common among young patients. One fifth of those patients were under 20” [33].

3.2.3. Sperm damage

Perhaps more than any other adverse health effect from exposure to MWR, damage to sperm is the most documented including in vitro, in vivo and human epidemiological studies.
A 2005 study with data collection from November 2002 to March 2004 examined the motility of sperm. “The proportion of slow progressive motile sperm increased with increase of the duration of the daily transmission time p < 0.01” [34].
A study of cellphone usage among men who attended an infertility clinic concluded, “Use of cell phones decrease the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology. The decrease in sperm parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones and independent of the initial semen quality” [35].
A Japanese study reported “This study has indicated significant decrease in sperm count [p = 0.004] and motility [p = 0.003] … because of exposure to MP [Mobile Phone] emission, respectively” [36].
An Australian study investigated how sperm cells are damaged by cellphone MWR. Its conclusions stated “RF-EMR [Radio Frequency-Electro Magnetic Radiation] in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation. These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and well-being of their offspring” [37].
Professor Stanton A. Glantz is a Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco Medical School. He is also author of a renowned graduate level statistics textbook, Primer of Biostatistics, Seventh Edition [38]. Referring to the above four studies on sperm damage from MWR he concludes:
“Taking all the information we have discussed on cell phones and sperm allows us to confidently conclude that exposure to cell phones adversely effects sperm.”
A study of temperature controlled human sperm placed 3 cm beneath a laptop computer connected to Wi-Fi for 4 h [39] reported, “Donor sperm samples, mostly normozoospermic [normal sperm], exposed ex vivo during 4 h to a wireless internet-connected laptop showed a significant decrease in progressive sperm motility and an increase in sperm DNA fragmentation.” The study concluded “Ex vivo exposure of human spermatozoa to a wireless internet-connected laptop decreased motility and induced DNA fragmentation by a nonthermal effect. We speculate that keeping a laptop connected wirelessly to the internet on the lap near the testes may result in decreased male fertility.”

3.3. Tumor latency times

The average time between exposure to a carcinogen and the diagnosis of a resultant solid tumor is 3 or more decades. Brain tumors, like lung cancer and many other solid tumors have, on average, long latency times[8] and [40]. Therefore, it may be several decades before tumors induced by current MWR exposures in children are diagnosed. For example, the Israeli study showing brain tumor risk was inverse with age had long latency times [8]. In contrast the Aydin et al. study had relatively short latency times [24].

4. Discussion

4.1. Wireless device exposure limit certification

The FCC has approved two processes to certify that a wireless device meets the required exposure limit:
(1)
The computer simulation process, and
(2)
The Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin (SAM) process.
The computer simulation process is discussed above.
The SAM process is based on a plastic mannequin representing the top 10% largest U.S. military recruits in 1989. Any head smaller than SAM will absorb more MWR (∼97% of the U.S. population) [17]. A liquid with the average adult absorption properties of the 40 tissues of the head is poured into a hole at the top of this head. A robotic arm with an electric field probe is positioned within the mannequin such that the location of the highest electric field is located within any one cubic centimeter volume. A cellphone to be certified is clamped to either side of SAM (see Fig. 2). The electric fields values are used to calculate the maximum spatial peak Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for any 1 g of tissue (equivalent to 1 cm3 volume). If the maximum SAR is at or below the U.S. exposure limit of 1.6 W/kg the phone is certified for sale without regard to the ±30% tolerance of the SAM certification process [41].
Full-size image (27 K)
Fig. 2. 
SAM Phantom. The red devices are clamps to hold the cellphone in a specified location. “CTIA” is the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association.
Source: Speag Phantom Product Flyer.
Figure options
Table 1 compares the capabilities of the two cellphone certification processes.
Table 1.
A comparison of the capability to measure SAR using the computer simulation certification process or the SAM certification process for various exposures.
AttributeSAM processFDTD processComments
Children's exposureNoYesMultiple ages
Pregnant women's exposureNoYes1, 3 and 9 months
Female exposureNoYes
Specific tissue parametersNoYes
3-D resolution∼1 cm3<1 mm="" nbsp="" style="border: 0px; line-height: 0; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" sup="">3
Relative costHigherLower Medical implant exposureNoYes Testicle exposureNoYes Female breast exposureNoYesWith and without wire frame bra Eye exposureNoYesWith and without wire frame eyeglasses Thyroid gland exposureNoYesWith and without metal necklace Parotid gland exposureNoYesWith and without dental braces
Adapted from Gandhi et al. [17].
Table options
As can be seen in Table 1 the SAM process is not capable of determining the MWR absorption as measured by SAR in every category except the relative cost and volume resolution. Nevertheless, the SAM process has been exclusively used to certify every cellphone to date.

4.2. Cellphone manual warnings and 20 cm distance rule

In spite of an FCC regulation “For purposes of evaluating compliance with localized SAR guidelines, portable devices should be tested or evaluated based on normal operating positions or conditions” [15], this regulation is ignored by the FCC. Holding a cellphone at a defined distance from your body is not “based on normal operating positions”!
For laptop computers, tablets and similar devices, an exposure limit that begins at a distance of 20 cm is not “based on normal operating positions.” Indeed the very term “laptop” computer defines the normal operating position, which when placed on the lap is not 20 cm distant.

4.3. Increasing brain cancer incidence

There are studies showing an increased risk of brain cancer from wireless phone use. It is a current problem. The worst brain cancer, glioblastoma, has increased in the United States, and Denmark. Brain cancer incidence has increased in Australia in recent years. These results are based on brain cancer incidence from each country's cancer registries.
A United States study examined 3 cancer registries (Los Angeles County, California and SEER 122) [42]. It examined incidence rates between years 1992–2006 and reported the Average Percent Change (APC) during those years. “RESULTS: Increased AAIRs [Age-Adjusted Incidence Rates] of frontal (APC +2.4–3.0%,p ≤ 0.001) and temporal (APC +1.3–2.3%, p ≤ 0.027) lobe glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) tumors were observed across all registries … The AAIR of cerebellar GBMs increased according to CCR (APC +11.9%,p < 0.001).”
The Danish Cancer Registry issued a press release that stated, “The number of men who are diagnosed with the most malignant form of brain cancer (glioblastoma), has almost doubled over the past ten years” [43].
The Australian study reported, “an overall significant increase in primary malignant brain tumors was observed over the study period from 2000 to 2008 (APC, 3.9; 95%CI, 2.4–5.4), particularly since 2004 (overall AAPC, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.6–5.2)” [44].

4.4. Selling toys for infants and toddlers

The iPad, tablets, laptop computers and cellphones are not children's toys. Within 20 cm of the device, the exposure limit can be exceeded with iPads and laptop computers. Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 are examples of toys for sale (there are many more similar toys).
Full-size image (30 K)
Fig. 3. 
An iPad placed within a rattle. Note the device is immediately over the boy's testicles.
Figure options
Full-size image (14 K)
Fig. 4. 
2-in-1 iPotty with Activity Seat for iPad.
Figure options
Full-size image (23 K)
Fig. 5. 
An iPad for entertaining a baby.
Figure options

4.5. Digital dementia

Digital dementia also referred to as FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) is a real concern. A science publication's review article describes the problem in great depth [45]. An empirical study of the problem was published in 2013 [46].

4.6. Governmental warnings

Many countries have issue warning about children's cellphone use. Some examples are:
Turkey 2013:
 Governor Aksoy Huseyin, of the Samsun province announced he would launch a cellphone campaign to bring awareness of their hazards.

Belgium 2013:
 The Public Health Minister bans cellphone sales for children under 7 years old. Advertisements are also banned during children's TV programs.

Australia 2013:
 The federal government created a fact sheet providing citizens ways to reduce exposure from wireless devices. The agency advises parents to limit children's exposure to cellphones.

France, 2010
 Laws make advertising cellphones to children under the age of 12 illegal.
Table options

5. Conclusions

The risk to children and adolescent from exposure to microwave radiating devices is considerable. Adults have a smaller but very real risk, as well.
(1)
Children absorb greater amount of microwave radiation (MWR) than adults;
(2)
MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen as is carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, DDT, lead, nickel, phenobarbital, styrene, diesel fuel, and gasoline. It seems clear that we would not expose children to these other agents, so why would we expose children to microwave radiation?
(3)
Fetuses are even more vulnerable than children. Therefore pregnant women should avoid exposing their fetus to microwave radiation.
(4)
Adolescent girls and women should not place cellphones in their bras or in hijabs.
(5)
Cellphone manual warnings make clear an overexposure problem exists.
(6)
Wireless devices are radio transmitters, not toys. Selling toys that use them should be banned.
(7)
Government warnings have been issued but most of the public are unaware of such warnings.
(8)
Exposure limits are inadequate and should be revised such that they are adequate.

Acknowledgements

Barb Payne for her special proof reading skills and Mary Redmayne for her advice and guidance.

References

    • [1]
    • R.F. Cleveland Jr., D.M. Sylvar, J.L. Ulcek
    • Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Additional Information for Evaluating Compliance of Mobile and Portable Devices with FCC Limits for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Emissions. Supplement C (Edition 97-01) to OET Bulletin 65 (Edition 97-01)
    • Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering & Technology (2014), p. 16
    • [4]
    • N. Kuster
    • Past, current, and future research on the exposure of children
    • Foundation for Research on Information Technology in Society (IT’IS), Foundation Internal Report (2009)http://www1.itis.ethz.ch/index/index_itis.html [accessed 08.12.10]
    • [5]
    • A. Christ, M.-C. Gosselin, M. Christopoulou, et al.
    • Age-dependent tissue-specific exposure of cell phone users
    • Phys Med Biol, 55 (2010), pp. 1767–1783
    • Full Text via CrossRef
    • [11]
    • IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz
    • The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (1991)
    • [12]
    • NCRP REPORT No. 86, Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic fields. Recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Issued April 2
    • (1986)
    • [13]
    • ICNIRP Guidelines
    • Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
    • Health Phys, 74 (April (4)) (1998), pp. 494–522
    • [15]
    • R.F. Cleveland Jr., D.M. Sylvar, J.L. Ulcek
    • Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering & Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01, August
    • (1997), p. 42
    • [16]
    • R.F. Cleveland Jr., D.M. Sylvar, J.L. Ulcek
    • Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering & Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01, August
    • (1997), p. 15
    • [18]
    • T.S. Aldad, G. Gan, G. Xiao-Bing, S. Hugh, H.S. Taylor
    • Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800–1900 MHz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice
    • Sci Rep, 2 (2012), p. 312
    • [21]
    • S.A. Rathus
    • Childhood voyages in development
    • (5th ed.)Publisher Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, USA (2014)
    • [22]
    • S. Baranski
    • Histological and histochemical effects of microwave irradiation on the central nervous system of rabbits and guinea pigs
    • Am J Physiol Med, 51 (1972), pp. 182–190
    • [23]
    • W.G. Switzer, D.S. Mitchell
    • Long-term effects of 2.45 GHz radiation on the ultrastructure of the cerebral cortex and hematologic profiles of rats
    • Radio Sci, 12 (1977), pp. 287–293
    • View Record in Scopus
       | 
      Full Text via CrossRef
    • [25]
    • Y.-H. Byun, M. Ha, H.-J. Kwon, Y.-C. Hong, J.-H. Leem, J. Sakong, et al.
    • Mobile phone use, blood lead levels, and attention deficit hyperactivity symptoms in children: a longitudinal study
    • PLOS ONE, 8 (3) (2013)
    • [27]
    • J.L. Eberhardt, B.R. Persson, A.E. Brun, L.G. Salford, L.O. Malmgren
    • Blood–brain barrier permeability and nerve cell damage in rat brain 14 and 28 days after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones
    • Electromagn Biol Med, 27 (3) (2008), pp. 215–229
    • View Record in Scopus
       | 
      Full Text via CrossRef
       | 
      Citing articles (34)
    • [29]
    • J.G. West, N.S. Kapoor, S.Y. Liao, J.W. Chen, L. Bailey, R.A. Nagourney
    • Case report, multifocal breast cancer in young women with prolonged contact between their breasts and their cellular phones
    • Case Rep Med, 2013 (2013), p. 354682
    • [37]
    • G.N. De Iuliis, R.J. Newey, B.V. King, R.J. Aitken
    • Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitro
    • PLoS ONE, 4 (July (7)) (2009)
    • [38]
    • S.A. Glantz
    • Primer of biostatistics
    • (7th ed.)The McGraw Hill Companies (2012), p. 247
    • [39]
    • C. Avendaño, A. Mata, C.A. Sanchez-Sarmiento, G.F. Doncel
    • Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation
    • Fertil Steril, 97 (January (1)) (2012) 39–45.e2
    • [40]
    • SadamoriN., S. Shibata, M. Mine, H. Miyazaki, H. Miyake, M. Kurihara, et al.
    • Incidence of intracranial meningiomas in Nagasaki atomic-bomb survivors
    • Int J Cancer, 67 (1996), pp. 318–322
    • [41]
    • IEEE Std 1528™-2003. IEEE Recommended Practice for Determining the Peak Spatial-Average Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in the Human Head from Wireless Communications Devices: Measurement Techniques, 19 December
    • The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (2003), p. 55
    • [44]
    • M. Dobes, V.G. Khurana, B. Shadbolt, S. Jain, S.F. Smith, R. Smee, et al.
    • A multicenter study of primary brain tumor incidence in Australia (2000–2008)
    • Neuro Oncol, 13 (7) (2011), pp. 783–790
    • View Record in Scopus
       | 
      Citing articles (6)
Corresponding author at: Environmental Health Trust, P.O. Box 58, Teton Village, WY 83025, USA. Tel.: +1 510 841 4362.
1
The FCC defines laptop computers, tablets and similar devices as “mobile devices” in comparison to “portable devices” which are cell and cordless phones and similar devices; the former falls under the 20 cm rule, the latter has no such rule.
2
SEER 12 is cancer registry data maintained by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) using 12 States of the United States.
Copyright © 2014 Saudi Society of Microscopes. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Note to users: Uncorrected proofs are Articles in Press that have been copy edited and formatted, but have not been finalized yet. They still need to be proof-read and corrected by the author(s) and the text could still change before final publication.
Although uncorrected proofs do not have all bibliographic details available yet, they can already be cited using the year of online publication and the DOI, as follows: author(s), article title, Publication (year), DOI. Please consult the journal's reference style for the exact appearance of these elements, abbreviation of journal names and use of punctuation.
When the final article is assigned to an volumes/issues of the Publication, the Article in Press version will be removed and the final version will appear in the associated published volumes/issues of the Publication. The date the article was first made available online will be carried over.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)