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, January 24, 2015

Leszczynski will be keynote speaker in Switzerland

Swiss association Gigaherz will celebrate the 15th anniversary of its existence. On this occasion Gigahertz is organizing Jubiläums-Generalversammlung taking place in Thalvil (near Zurich) on March 7, 2015. Dariusz Leszczynski will be the keynote speaker at this meeting with presentation discussing the validity of the currently available science on cell phone radiation and health, in […]

CTF Sounds the Alarm on Wi-Fi

A Canadian Teachers Federation (CTF) Brief The Use of
Wi-Fi in Schools (2014) is sounding the alarm on Wi-Fi
in schools, stating that “Teachers are rightly concerned
for their personal safety and the safety of children in their
care.” The CTF Brief calls for Wi-Fi to be turned off when
not in use, resources to educate the public about ways to
reduce exposure from Wi-Fi and wireless devices, and for
updated federal guidelines on microwave radiation.
The World Health Organization classified Wi-Fi and wireless
frequencies as a Class 2B carcinogen in the same category
as lead and DDT, and scientists now say the dangers
are much greater than originally thought. While the CTF
recommends reducing exposure, other countries such
as France and Switzerland recommend banning Wi-Fi
in schools altogether, instead opting for Ethernet (hard
wired) connections.

The CTF reports that Health Canada’s 40 year old guidelines
on microwave radiation fail to consider biological
effects, which scientists say put the public and future
generations at risk. The American Academy of Pediatrics
agrees, advising that standards need to be updated in
order to protect children from harm. Canadians for Safe
Technology, led by former president of Microsoft Canada,
point out that countries such as China, Russia, Italy and
Switzerland have exposure guidelines 100 times safer
than Canada.

The CTF calls for resources to educate the public on the
safe use of wireless technologies. Students must be made
aware of important safety information in user manuals,
so they do not exceed our government’s exposure limits
while using wireless devices at school. For instance,
BlackBerry warns “Use hands-free operation if it is available
and keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.98 in. (25
mm) from your body when device is turned on” and IPad
manufacturers warn to keep antenna away from the user’s
body.

Canadians for Safe Technology urges governments and
Boards of Education to take action to protect students’
health by ensuring that Wi-Fi and wireless technologies
are turned off when not in use and ensuring that all students
are equipped with information on the safe use of
wireless technologies as recommended by the CTF. For

more information, visit c4st.org.

Friday, January 23, 2015

Leaky Blood Vessels In The Brain May Lead To Alzheimer's

Joel's comments: Prior research has shown that exposure to low intensity microwave radiation opens the blood-brain barrier. Also, EMF exposure adversely affects the hippocampus. How much of a role does EMF exposure play in Alzheimer's disease?

--

Leaky Blood Vessels In The Brain May Lead To Alzheimer's

Jon Hamilton, NPR, January 23, 2015

Listen to the Story

All Things Considered

2 min 54 sec

(Leaks in a barrier between blood vessels and brain cells could contribute to the development of Alzheimer's.)

Researchers appear to have found a new risk factor for Alzheimer's disease: leaky blood vessels.
An MRI study of found those experiencing mild problems with thinking and memory had much leakier blood vessels in the hippocampus. "This is exactly the area of the brain that is involved with learning and memory," says Berislav Zlokovic, the study's senior author and director of the Zilkha Neurogenetic Institute at the University of Southern California.
The study, published in Neuron, also found that blood vessels in the hippocampus tend to become leakier in all people as they age. But the process is accelerated in those likely to develop Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia.

(Tightly packed glial cells (green) and nerve cells (red) surround a blood vessel to form a barrier that keeps toxins from reaching delicate brain cells.)

The finding suggests that it may be possible to identify people at risk for Alzheimer's by looking at their blood vessels, says Rod Corriveau , a program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, which helped fund the research. The results also suggests that a drug to help the body seal up leaky blood vessels could delay or prevent Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia.
"This study gives patients and families hope for the future, hope that detecting leaky blood vessels early will provide the opportunity to stop dementia before it starts," Corriveau says.
The new research grew out of earlier studies of people who died with Alzheimer's disease. "We were looking at brains from autopsies and it (became) quite apparent that there is a breakdown of the blood-brain barrier," Zlokovic says.
The blood-brain barrier is a special layer of cells that normally prevents bacteria and toxins that circulate in the bloodstream from mixing with the fluid that surrounds brain cells. When it breaks down, toxins leak into the fluid that surrounds brain cells and eventually damage or kill the cells.
The autopsy research couldn't show whether the breakdown occurred before or after Alzheimer's appeared. So Zlokovic and his team used a special type of MRI to study the living brains of more than 60 people. The group included both healthy individuals and people with mild cognitive impairment, which can be an early sign of Alzheimer's.

The researchers paid special attention to the hippocampus because it is one of the first brain areas affected by Alzheimer's. And they found that in some regions of the hippocampus, the permeability of the blood-brain barrier was more than 50 percent higher in people with mild cognitive impairment.

The finding could help explain why people with atherosclerosis and other problems with their blood vessels are more likely to develop Alzheimer's, says Corriveaux. "There's every reason to think that a lot of Alzheimer's disease does involve vascular damage," he says.

The study also adds to the evidence that amyloid plaques and the tangles known as tau aren't the only factors that lead to Alzheimer's. There are probably several different paths to dementia, Corriveau says, including one that involves leaky blood vessels.

One important question now is whether it's possible to repair damage to the blood brain barrier. That may be possible using cells known as pericytes, which help prevent blood vessels in the brain from leaking.

http://n.pr/1B29FFL

--

Montagne A1, Barnes SR2, Sweeney MD1, Halliday MR1, Sagare AP1, Zhao Z1, Toga AW3, Jacobs RE2, Liu CY4, Amezcua L5, Harrington MG6, Chui HC5, Law M7, Zlokovic BV8. Blood-brain barrier breakdown in the aging human hippocampus. Neuron. 2015 Jan 21;85(2):296-302. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.032.

Abstract

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) limits entry of blood-derived products, pathogens, and cells into the brain that is essential for normal neuronal functioning and information processing. Post-mortem tissue analysis indicates BBB damage in Alzheimer's disease (AD). The timing of BBB breakdown remains, however, elusive. Using an advanced dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI protocol with high spatial and temporal resolutions to quantify regional BBB permeability in the living human brain, we show an age-dependent BBB breakdown in the hippocampus, a region critical for learning and memory that is affected early in AD. The BBB breakdown in the hippocampus and its CA1 and dentate gyrus subdivisions worsened with mild cognitive impairment that correlated with injury to BBB-associated pericytes, as shown by the cerebrospinal fluid analysis. Our data suggest that BBB breakdown is an early event in the aging human brain that begins in the hippocampus and may contribute to cognitive impairment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25611508
Highlights

High-resolution MRI analysis of regional BBB permeability in the living human brain
BBB breakdown during normal aging begins in the hippocampus
Accelerated BBB breakdown in the hippocampus may contribute to cognitive impairment

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:             http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:        http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:    http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:       @berkeleyprc

The Cheapest Way of Screening a RF Transmitting Smart AMI AMR Utility Meter

Maryland woman suffers acute radiation exposure from a bank of smart meters

Different roles of electromagnetic field experts when giving policy advice: an expert consultation

Spruijt P, Knol AB, Petersen AC, Lebret E. Different roles of electromagnetic field experts when giving policy advice: an expert consultation. Environ Health. 2015 Jan 21;14(1):7. [Epub ahead of print].

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The overall evidence for adverse health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) at levels of exposure normally experienced by the public is generally considered weak. However, whether long-term health effects arise remains uncertain and scientific policy advice is therefore given against a background of uncertainty. Several theories exist about different roles that experts may take when they provide advice on complex issues such as EMF. To provide empirical evidence for these theories, we conducted an expert consultation with as main research question: What are the different roles of EMF experts when they provide policy advice?

METHODS: Q methodology was used to empirically test theoretical notions on the existence and determinants of different expert roles and to analyze which roles actually play out in the domain of EMF. Experts were selected based on a structured nominee process. In total 32 international EMF experts participated. Responses were analyzed using Principal Component Analysis and for the open questions we used Atlas.ti.

RESULTS: Four expert roles were found. Most striking differences between the four roles are whether experts consider current EMF policies adequate or not, whether additional -precautionary- measures are needed, and how experts view their position vis-a-vis policymakers and/or other stakeholders.

CONCLUSION: This empirical study provides support for the so far mainly theoretical debate about the existence of different roles of experts when they give policy advice. The experts' assessment of the degree of uncertainty of the issue turned out to be highly associated with their role. We argue that part of the controversy that exists in the debate regarding scientific policy advice on EMF is about different values and roles.

Open Access Paper: http://bit.ly/1yEsX6U

Key characteristics of the four roles (from Table 2)

1) early warners (n = 13): Disagreement with current policies. Transparency about methods, assumptions and personal preferences. More research. Precautionary measures.

Typical advice: Precautionary measures. Develop new more stringent policy standards.

2) pro-science experts (n = 10): Evidence-based policy. Monitor risks. Not humble about contribution of science to society.

Typical advice: Evidence-based policy, ALARA and ICNIRP guidelines*

3) status quo experts (n = 6): Agreement with current policies. No need for additional regulatory measures. Evidence-based policy.

Typical advice: Evidence-based policy, ALARA and ICNIRP guidelines*

4) issue advocates (n = 3): Interaction with policy makers and stakeholders. More sources than science. No need to explicate differences of opinion between experts.

Typical advice: ?

* The differences between status quo and pro-science experts included the following: humble attitude of scientists and value of citizens’ knowledge.

"We compared our list of respondents to the membership lists of the ICNIRP and the BioInitiative participants. The results pointed towards a relationship between involvement with one of these groups and the attributed expert roles. It was interesting that experts who participated in our consultation thought that their views on the risks of EMFs did not tend to differ from those of colleagues (statement 28). However, the results of our research clearly indicated differences in roles and viewpoints.

Our study confirmed that different distinct roles and viewpoints existed within the community of EMF experts. This research also suggested that the indicated level of uncertainty was one of the factors associated with the EMF experts’ roles and, most likely, their policy advice. Further study is needed to determine if this was a causal relation and if this also applies to other environmental health issues. This empirical study provided support for the mainly theoretical debate about the role of experts when they give policy advice. These first empirical findings need corroboration from other empirical studies and on other issues. Additionally, we need to better understand both determinants of roles as well as its effect on policy advice and debate. Based on these results, we argue that part of the controversy that exists in the debate regarding scientific policy advice is about different values and roles (i.e., normative ambiguity [17]). These insights may lead to a better understanding of the processes and differences in the results of scientific policy advice on complex issues."

--

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:             http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:        http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:    http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:           @berkeleyprc

New wireless infrastructure rules to take effect in phases

Chip Yorkgitis and Dawn Damschen, Telecom Law Monitor, Jan 21, 2015

The new FCC rules adopted in October 2014 promoting more rapid wireless infrastructure deployments will begin taking effect next month, but not all key provisions will be following the same schedule. In the Report and Order we blogged on last fall, the Commission took steps to streamline the review process and reduce the regulatory burdens associated with wireless deployments, particularly distributed antenna system (DAS) networks and other small-cell systems. Further, the new rules clarify the statutory requirements related to State and local government review of new infrastructure requests.
Many of the new rules are scheduled to take effect in the second week of February 2015. But the entities the rules are designed to benefit will have to wait before the rules take full effect. The FCC delayed implementation of several of the significant changes to the wireless infrastructure deployment process and others are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which could take months.
Any company seeking to construct new towers or similar structures or deploy antennas on existing buildings and structures for its own wireless services or those of third-parties should be aware of the various effective dates for the new rules and be prepared to comply. Below is a breakdown of the principal rules changes and their corresponding effective dates.
Effective February 9, 2015:

The EA rules identifying actions that trigger the need for a company to complete an EA were updated to state that the EA requirements do not apply to certain wireless deployments, such as mounting an antenna and associated equipment on existing utility structures, buildings or other non-tower structures, when certain criteria are satisfied.
Certain wireless facilities, including deployments on new or replacement poles, no longer require an Environmental Assessment (EA) if the facility is located in an active Federal, State, local or Tribal right-of-way and the facility meets certain height, size and location criteria.

Effective April 8, 2015:

The rule providing that Antenna Structure Registrations (ASR) are no longer required for construction, modification or replacement of an antenna structure on Federal land where another Federal agency has assumed responsibility for assessing the environmental effect will take effect two months after the rules described above.
The new Subpart CC of the rules governing State and local review of applications for wireless service facility modification is also delayed sixty days. These rules implement Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act ( 47 U.S.C. 1455), which directs State or local governments to approve any eligible request for modification of an existing tower or base station that “does not substantially change” the physical dimensions of the structure.

Effective Date Dependent on OMB Approval

The new 60-day “deemed granted” remedy for companies when the State or local reviewing body fails to act in a timely fashion on eligible facilities modification requests – those that do not substantially change the physical dimensions of the antennas structure –will not take effect OMB approval. The FCC will provide a subsequent announcement in the Federal Register to provide the effective date. In the meantime, companies must wait for actual approval.
The new rules stating that temporary structures do not require an ASR if they will meet all of the following criteria will not take effect until the OMB completes its review: not be in place for more than sixty days, not require marking and lighting under FAA regulations, are less than 200 feet in height, and involve no new excavation. A subsequent Federal Register notice will announce the effective date. In the meantime, companies may construct such temporary structures without an ASR pursuant to the FCC’s interim waiver.

http://bit.ly/1ECTUsm

New Wireless Siting Rules on the Way

J. Sharpe Smith, AGI Media Group, Jan 16, 2015

The FCC published its rules streamlining the siting and construction of wireless sites in the Federal Register on January 8. The rules go into effect on different dates, which makes the process more complicated. And some effective dates depend on approval of the rules by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The new rules update the environmental and historical property evaluation of proposed small cell and DAS deployments, as well as clarifying and implementing statutory requirements for state and local governments’ review of wireless infrastructure siting applications. In particular, the Commission provided definitions of terms in Section 6409(a), including transmission equipment, base station, wireless tower and what constitutes a substantial change of at tower’s physical dimensions.

The new rule implementing Section 6409(a) (Section 1.40001) will become effective on April 8, 2015, except for Sections 1.40001(c)(3)(i), 1.40001(c)(3)(iii), and 1.140001(c)(4), according to William Sill, partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer.

“These sections — which include provisions addressing the tolling of time frames for review of eligible facilities requests and the failure to act by local jurisdictions (deemed granted) — contain new information collection requirements and require OMB approval,” Sill said. The FCC will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval of these rules and the date when they become effective.

Those rules not implementing Section 6409(a) will become effective on February 9, 2015, except for Section 17.4(c)(1)(vii), which codifies the existing waiver for temporary towers and requires OMB approval. The FCC will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval of the rule and the effective date.

Deadlines to challenge the Report & Order

As any FCC-watcher knows, this is not the final word on the subject there will be challenges and probably lawsuits. The next stages of the process are listed below:

o Petitions for reconsideration to the FCC are due February 9, 2015.

o Petitions for review to the Courts of Appeals are due March 9, 2015.

For more information, CLICK HERE

--

Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies
Federal Registry

A Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 01/08/2015

Summary

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts rules to update and tailor the manner in which it evaluates the impact of proposed deployments of wireless infrastructure on the environment and historic properties. The Commission also adopts rules to clarify and implement statutory requirements applicable to State and local governments in their review of wireless infrastructure siting applications, and it adopts an exemption from its environmental public notification process for towers that are in place for only short periods of time. Taken together, these steps will reduce the cost and delays associated with facility siting and construction, and thereby facilitate the delivery of more wireless capacity in more locations to consumers throughout the United States.

http://bit.ly/newFCCrule

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:             http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:        http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:    http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:           @berkeleyprc

Extremely low frequency magnetic field modulates the level of neurotransmitters

Chung YH, Lee YJ, Lee HS, Chung SJ, Lim CH, Oh KW, Sohn UD, Park ES, Jeong JH. Extremely low frequency magnetic field modulates the level of neurotransmitters. Korean J Physiol Pharmacol. 2015 Jan;19(1):15-20. doi: 10.4196/kjpp.2015.19.1.15. Epub 2014 Dec 31.

Abstract

This study was aimed to observe that extremely low frequency magnetic field (ELF-MF) may be relevant to changes of major neurotransmitters in rat brain.

After the exposure to ELF-MF (60 Hz, 2.0 mT) for 2 or 5 days, we measured the levels of biogenic amines and their metabolites, amino acid neurotransmitters and nitric oxide (NO) in the cortex, striatum, thalamus, cerebellum and hippocampus.

The exposure of ELF-MF for 2 or 5 days produced significant differences in norepinephrine and vanillyl mandelic acid in the striatum, thalamus, cerebellum and hippocampus. Significant increases in the levels of serotonin and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid were also observed in the striatum, thalamus or hippocampus. ELF-MF significantly increased the concentration of dopamine in the thalamus. ELF-MF tended to increase the levels of amino acid neurotransmitters such as glutamine, glycine and γ -aminobutyric acid in the striatum and thalamus, whereas it decreased the levels in the cortex, cerebellum and hippocampus. ELF-MF significantly increased NO concentration in the striatum, thalamus and hippocampus.

The present study has demonstrated that exposure to ELF-MFs may evoke the changes in the levels of biogenic amines, amino acid and NO in the brain although the extent and property vary with the brain areas. However, the mechanisms remain further to be characterized.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25605992?dopt=Abstract

Paper: http://pdf.medrang.co.kr/paper/pdf/Kjpp/Kjpp019-01-03.pdf

The BioEM 2015

Invitation

The BioEM2015 Local Organizing Committee, The Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS) and the European BioElectromagnetics Association (EBEA), welcome you to Asilomar Conference Center, California, for the Annual Joint Meeting of our two societies from 14 to 19 June 2015.

As the premier international conference in the area of bioelectromagnetics, BioEM2015 is expected to stimulate further research in this field through the exchange of ideas and lively debate on state-of-the-art knowledge, as well as gaps to be filled.

With the increased presence of electromagnetic fields (EMF) in our everyday lives, the meeting aims at presenting and advancing high quality research in basic and applied aspects of bioelectromagnetics to address the medical applications, health concerns, and regulations associated with EMF. BioEM2015 will feature invited plenary talks by world-renowned scientists, a variety of special sessions and panel discussions aligned with the most pressing issues in the field of bioelectromagnetics, as well as informative technical sessions, poster sessions, and social functions. Student competitions are a focus of the conference. Students from around the world will have the opportunity to present their work in an oral or poster session while developing their technical communication skills and networking with the bioelectromagnetics community.

We look forward to meeting you at the Asilomar Conference Center located on the shores of the Pacific Ocean near Monterey, California. One major advantage of this meeting site is that we will have all of our meals together, and this will provide much more opportunity for networking and interactions over a relaxing meal. Poster sessions will be held in the evenings to allow more interaction time in a relaxed setting and allow for some free time every afternoon. Our Wednesday banquet will be held at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, one of the best in the world.

Asilomar also offers many other tourist attractions. Beautiful San Francisco is only 2 h away by car and the wine country only 1 h further. Los Angeles, Disneyland, Hollywood are only 5 h away by car or 1.5 h by plane.

We trust that this will be a fruitful scientific meeting against the backdrop of the California sea shore.

http://www.bioem2015.org

MP says Canadians unaware of health risks posed by cell phones

CANADA

MP says Canadians unaware of health risks posed by cell phones

Conservative MP Terence Young says Canadians are not fully aware of what he says are serious health concerns resulting from cell phone and wireless router use, especially to children. Young’s Private Member’s Bill will seek to place safety warnings on Cell phones and Wifi routers sold in Canada.

http://globalnews.ca/video/1780419/mp-says-canadians-unaware-of-health-risks-posed-by-cell-phones?utm_source=January+2014+Newsletter&utm_campaign=Oct+2014+Newsletter&utm_medium=email

Forbes Features EHT Study on Children’s Wireless Risk and then Launches Damage Control

Home / Breaking News / Current Page

By Paul Doyon

For years Forbes has been publishing commentaries attempting to downplay the dangers of wireless (and other forms of electromagnetic) radiation by not only attempting to criticize the wireless research and cast doubt upon the researchers, but also by publishing blatantly false and misleading information. Most of these articles have come from a Geoffrey Kabat, an epidemiologist known for his research, supported by the tobacco industry, downplaying the effects of second-hand cigarette smoke. Now, it seems that Kabat has become a champion for the wireless industry. Steven Salzburg, for example, also wrote in a 2014 piece published in Forbes stating that high-voltage power lines do not cause cancer and claimed that a 2002 WHO study designated extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) as a Class 3 carcinogen (not carcinogenic) when in fact the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) branch of the WHO did indeed declare ELF EMFs as a Class 2 carcinogen (possibly carcinogenic) in 2002– and in 2011, it went a step further by also declaring radio frequency [RF] EMF as a Class 2 carcinogen, though Salzburg conveniently also fails to mention this.

In an about-face, on January 13th, 2015, Forbes published an article entitled “Study Suggests Wi-Fi Exposure More Dangerous To Kids Than Previously Thought” (the original posted on the Take Back Your Power website), written by CEO of X Tech Ventures, author, and self-proclaimed technology geek, Robert J. Szczerba (who is “proud of his being the father of a wonderful little boy with autism”^★) and based on a research study entitled “Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences,” (written by Lloyd Morgan, Santosh Kesari, and Devra Davis).

On January 14^th, 2015, a revised version appeared on the Forbes‘ website: “Study Suggests Wi-Fi Exposure More Dangerous To Kids Than Previously Thought”

While it is wonderful that Forbes is now seriously addressing the wireless issue, in the revised version the following statement

the studies cited in the paper found RF/EMF exposure is linked to cancers of the brain and salivary glands, ADHD, low sperm count, and, among girls who keep cell phones in their bra, breast cancer.

was replaced with

More generally, the studies cited in the paper seek to link RF/EMF exposure to different types of cancer, low sperm count, and other disorders.

Furthermore, the following blurb with the obvious intent to mislead the public and discredit the authors of the study was also then added in the revised version:

However, it is important to note that survey articles such as these need to be taken in their proper context. This particular article is one group’s perspective. It was published in a relatively new and minor journal with limited data sets. They also note that the average time between exposure to a carcinogen and a resultant tumor is three or more decades,a thus making it difficult to arrive at definitive conclusions. This is not a call to throw out all electronic devices. However, at the very least, it should open up the discussion about different safety levels for adults versus children.

And to add gasoline to the fire, industry damage control is spreading to other media outlets like this spin story in the Pakistan Daily Times:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/entertainment/17-Jan-2015/study-claims-wifi-is-more-dangerous-to-children

And in a further effort to damage-control the article, in response to Szczerba’s article, Salzburg has even chimed in with his own article in Forbes entitled “Wi-Fi Exposure Isn’t Killing Your Kids”: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2015/01/20/wi-fi-exposure-isnt-killing-your-kids/to which Devra Davis responds with a letter in the comment section.

While it is a welcome breath of fresh air to hear a CEO of a tech company and self-proclaimed tech geek acknowledge the likely dangers wireless radiation is posing to our health, the seemingly industry-pressured revisions and their damage-control articles in other media outlets are not only disconcerting, but also a testament to the attempt of the wireless industry to manipulate public opinion regarding the serious implications wireless-radiation exposure poses to our health and the health of our children.

^★There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that EMFs are playing a role in the worldwide increase in autism. For more information, see, for example, Dr. Martha Herbert’s research published in the BioInitiative Report: http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec20_2012_Findings_in_Autism.pdf

References:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2014/07/08/the-new-york-times-revisits-the-debate-over-electromagnetic-fields-reviving-baseless-fears-while-ignoring-what-has-been-learned/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2014/09/01/do-high-voltage-power-lines-cause-cancer/

http://microwavenews.com/news/backissues/j-a01issue.pdf

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertszczerba/

http://www.takebackyourpower.net/news/2015/01/14/forbes-study-suggests-wi-fi-exposure-dangerous-kids-previously-thought/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertszczerba/2015/01/13/study-suggests-wi-fi-exposure-more-dangerous-to-kids-than-previously-thought/

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/entertainment/17-Jan-2015/study-claims-wifi-is-more-dangerous-to-children

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2015/01/20/wi-fi-exposure-isnt-killing-your-kids/

About Paul Doyon:

Paul Doyon has been researching the biological effects of electromagnetic field exposure and working to educate the public about these effects since becoming ill living in the vicinity of several cell towers in 2005 while living in Japan. He was sick for six months with the symptoms described in the literature as “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome” before he even imagined that this might be caused by electromagnetic radiation exposures. After finding and renting a log house in the Japanese mountains in a white zone — an area free of cell phone signals — approximately 50% of his symptoms disappeared within the first 24 hours of staying there. He ended up staying in this place for four months to recover but during this time also started to become increasingly sensitive to electromagnetic fields. He publishes a blog called “The Microwave Factor” and manages a Yahoo Group called “EMF Refugee.” Paul holds a BA in Psychology, an MA in Teaching, and an MA in Advanced Japanese Studies and taught EFL/ESL for 25 years in seven countries.

Visit EMF Refugees

The Microwave Factor

http://ehtrust.org/forbes-features-eht-study-childrens-wireless-risk-launches-damage-control/

IEEE misleads its readers about the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation

Joel's comments:

The news report below from IEEE Spectrum attacks the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) based upon the results of a meta-analysis.

This news report, however, failed to mention that the review only examined studies of single-session therapy. Moreover, the report did not discuss the other limitations of this paper:

According to the paper ...

"A major limitation of this analysis is the lack of comparable research available in the current tDCS literature. Of the 50 cognitive outcome measures replicated between two different research groups included in this paper, 35 include only 2 or 3 papers. Accordingly, these analyses must be interpreted with caution. It is worth noting, however, that of these 35 outcome measures, 25 include papers report opposing effect sizes. This means >70% of analyses which include only 2 or 3 papers contain at least 1 paper reporting enhancement and at least 1 paper reporting impairment following tDCS. As noted above, this may be due to varied state-dependency effects between different studies. Until more direct replication of older research is undertaken and more data are made available for pooling, it is difficult to conclude the true effect of this device."

"our findings do not preclude the possibility that tDCS has an effect on different populations (juvenile, elderly, infirm), when utilized multiple-times over several days or weeks, or on behavioral tasks. Nor does this preclude the possibility that tDCS could be effective if utilized in a novel fashion (hi-definition tDCS, spinal tDCS, pulsed current tDCS, etc.)."

Given the "lack of comparable research available in the current tDCS literature," I question whether it was appropriate to conduct a meta-analysis.

Brain Hackers Beware: Scientist Says tDCS Has No Effect

New research from Australia calls into question the dramatic claims made for transcranial brain stimulation

Mark Harris, IEEE Spectrum, Jan 21, 2015

The largest meta-analysis yet of the ability of one kind of electrical brain stimulation technology to alter how people think and feel has found no evidence that it has any effect on healthy adults.
Jared Horvath, a neuroscientist at the University of Melbourne, in Australia, looked at every study of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) that reported an impact on cognitive and behavioral activities such as problem solving, learning, mental arithmetic, vision tasks, and memory games. He then excluded results that had not been replicated by other researchers, as well as any experiments lacking a “sham condition” control group—where participants were connected to the device but didn’t receive current. While many of the more than 200 individual studies that remained claimed to have found significant effects, those effects disappeared after Horvath’s number crunching. “When I pulled out the 20 studies looking at tDCS and working memory, for example, they all found something, but they all found something different,” says Horvath.
One study may have found an effect on accuracy, another on reaction time, and a third on response confidence. “But when I brought them together, they just canceled each other out, and I was left with nothing,” he says. It was a similar story for more than 100 other cognitive and behavioral outcomes. “It looks like the evidence says tDCS is not doing anything.”
“Individual differences can mask effects and even lead to opposite results”—Roi Cohen Kadosh, University of OxfordThis news may come as a shock to the thousands of DIY brain hackers who have been building and using tDCS devices in the hope of boosting their brainpower at the push of a button. Many of those biohackers constructed their own brain zappers from 9-volt batteries and simple circuits for as little as US $10. The impact of Horvath’s paper could be even more serious for companies hoping to sell designer tDCS machines, for much higher sums, to a mainstream audience as “cognitive enhancement devices.”
Felipe Fregni, director of the Laboratory of Neuromodulation at Harvard Medical School, shares some of Horvath’s caution but is adamant that the technology has been proved. “tDCS is not a magic…bullet, and the effects are very small,” he says. “But we’ve seen over and over in different studies that it helps you to learn new skills. It helps you to activate neural networks that were deactivated or never used before.”
“There’s probably someone out there that this really works for,” admits Horvath. “But if it only works for one person, one time, is that really an effect, or is it a placebo or some statistical anomaly you can’t repeat? And for all those outcomes that have been repeated, there are almost twice as many that haven’t been replicated. A huge body of the literature are one-offs.”
Horvath’s latest results, which were presented at the Australasian Society for Cognitive Science conference in December, follow hot on the heels of another meta-analysis he conducted. That one found that tDCS did not have any significant physiological effects on the brain.
“We want tDCS to work so bad that we’re forgetting the foundational stuff that we should be focusing on”—Jared Horvath, University of MelbourneThe new findings do not surprise Jamie Tyler, a neuroscientist at Arizona State University and chief science officer of Thync, a start-up that raised $13 million to launch a smartphone-controlled tDCS device at the Consumer Electronics Show last week. “This meta-analysis is not shocking to me at all,” he says. “We tried to replicate some basic tDCS findings and did not find an effect on any of those cognitive parameters either.”
Tyler claims to have then gone back to the drawing board, using a new (and unpublished) approach to tDCS that generates reliable psychological responses. Thync’s device will be marketed as producing either energetic or stress-busting neurosignaling electrical waveforms that Tyler calls “vibes.” But even with his modified tDCS technology, Tyler says that his company has found no effects on cognition.
Not every neuroscientist is as quick to dismiss decades of tDCS research. “Individual differences can mask effects and even lead to opposite results,” says Roi Cohen Kadosh of the University of Oxford, in England. He recently published research showing that identical tDCS stimulation in people who were either nervous or confident about their mathematical abilities produced opposite behavioral and physiological effects. The anxious mathematicians improved their skills, while the skills of the confident ones deteriorated. Over a large enough population, he says, any such positive and negative effects would average out to nothing. “It is highly likely that the research groups are sampling their participants from a similar environment [usually undergraduate students] and therefore reducing the impact of individual differences,” says Kadosh.
In the past, meta-analyses of tDCS for medical problems such as depression and chronic pain have suggested that it may have beneficial effects in a clinical setting. Horvath admits that much more research needs to be done. “We want tDCS to work so bad that we’re forgetting the foundational stuff that we should be focusing on, systematic research just changing one variable at a time,” he says. “That’s going to kick our butt, because if you don’t have a solid foundation, sooner or later the whole thing crumbles.”
About the AuthorContributing editor Mark Harris has been delving into the history of Google’s self-driving car project for IEEE Spectrum and other publications. Before that he investigated the reason that Kodak’s patent portfolio fetched such a pittance.

http://bit.ly/15vZhxi

--

Jared Cooney Horvath, Jason D. Forte, Olivia Carter. Quantitative Review Finds No Evidence of Cognitive Effects in Healthy Populations from Single-Session Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimulation. Published Online: January 16, 2015. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2015.01.400.

Highlights

Of 42 replicated cognitive outcome measures included in 59 analyses, tDCS has a significant effect on zero
There appears to be no reliable effect of tDCS on executive function, language, memory, or miscellaneous measures.
Single-session tDCS does not appear to generate reliable cognitive effect in healthy populations

AbstractBackground Over the last 15-years, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a relatively novel form of neuromodulation, has seen a surge of popularity in both clinical and academic settings. Despite numerous claims suggesting that a single session of tDCS can modulate cognition in healthy adult populations (especially working memory and language production), the paradigms utilized and results reported in the literature are extremely variable. To address this, we conduct the largest quantitative review of the cognitive data to date.

Methods Single-session tDCS data in healthy adults (18-50) from every cognitive outcome measure reported by at least two different research groups in the literature was collected. Outcome measures were divided into 4 broad categories: executive function, language, memory, and miscellaneous. To account for the paradigmatic variability in the literature, we undertook a three-tier analysis system; each with less-stringent inclusion criteria than the prior. Standard mean difference values with 95%CIs were generated for included studies and pooled for each analysis.

Results Of the 59 analyses conducted, tDCS was found to not have a significant effect on any - regardless of inclusion laxity. This includes no effect on any working memory outcome or language production task.

Conclusion Our quantitative review does not support the idea that tDCS generates a reliable effect on cognition in healthy adults. Reasons for and limitations of this finding are discussed. This work raises important questions regarding the efficacy of tDCS, state-dependency effects, and future directions for this tool in cognitive research.

http://www.brainstimjrnl.com/article/S1935-861X%2815%2900857-8/abstract

Conclusions

Taken together, we have found no evidence that single-session tDCS has a reliable effect on cognitions in healthy adult populations. When this is combined with our previous work which suggested tDCS does not have a reliable effect on neurophysiologic measures beyond MEP amplitude [1], it becomes difficult avoid questions of device efficacy. It is important to note, however, that these findings may be due to state dependency effects which, with elucidation, can be controlled for and leveraged. In addition,our findings do not preclude the possibility that tDCS has an effect on different populations (juvenile, elderly, infirm), when utilized multiple-times over several days or weeks, or on behavioral tasks. Nor does this preclude the possibility that tDCS could be effective if utilized in a novel fashion (hi-definition tDCS, spinal tDCS, pulsed current tDCS, etc.). Despite this, as this field moves forward, it will be important future studies include measures which directly replicate prior work, explore potential state-dependent effects within and between studies, and report quantitative data for all explored outcome measures (so that a more clear picture of the state of the field can be derived).

Thursday, January 22, 2015

STRESS FROM CURRENT AND RADIATION The sick sleeping-room and its successful treatment

STRESS FROM
CURRENT AND RADIATION

Google-SpaceX Rumoured Deal to Bring Free Internet to the World

Internet giant Google and the futuristic tech firm SpaceX are rumoured to cooperate on providing free internet to the whole humanity.

MOSCOW, January 20 (Sputnik) — Google is about to invest $1 bln in Elon Musk’s private space exploration enterprise SpaceX to bring his goal of global satellite-borne wireless Internet to the world, according to reports.

Google will purchase a stake in SpaceX, whose market valuation exceeds $10 bln. SpaceX is rapidly growing and has many different branches, including rocketry development and manufacturing, satellite tech development, space transportation and flight operations. Google has not yet commented on which sectors it would invest into.

Google’s interest in this particular SpaceX project is obvious. Spreading a free WiFi access to all over the world will provide a major boost to commercial revenues and overall valuation of most Internet, telecom and tech companies, primarily in the US, but also in other developed nations and, to a lesser extent, in the third world.

SpaceX Seeks to Land Reusable Rocket on Earth to Open New Era in Space Industry

Led by the eccentric billionaire Tesla Motors Chief Exec Elon Musk, SpaceX has been drawing a pot of public attention recently, as the company is struggling to implement futuristic and bleeding-edge tech in regular life of Terrans. One of such projects is an ambitious initiative to provide Internet to the most remote and/or closed societies of the world. Stratosphere balloons and solar-powered drones are other adjacent SpaceX’ initiatives.

Neither Google, nor SpaceX have yet confirmed the rumoured deal.

Speculation of the up and coming collaboration between Google and SpaceX first appeared in several tech blogs, including the Information.

Last week Elon Musk said SpaceX is “creating a global communications system that would be larger than anything that has been talked about to date,” and probably this is the dimension Google will be participating in.