Tuesday, June 19, 2012

The effects of invisible waves


The effects of invisible waves

June 11, 2012
The world is becoming dominated by wireless technology which is constantly emanated as micro, radio and extremely low frequency waves through the air. Researchers are studying the effects of constant exposure to these waves and how it impacts the human body. 
Cell phones, cell phone towers, wireless internet routers, cordless phones and power lines of all sorts have all been recognized as possible contributors to an environmental health condition called electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EMS) caused by significant exposure from radio waves.  
EMS symptoms include poor sleep, fatigue, headache, nausea, dizziness, heart palpitations, memory impairment and skin rashes. Patients’ reactions vary, some requiring life-altering changes to minimize exposures as much as possible.  
The first step for patients having these symptoms is to see their family physician. From there, they are usually referred to a specialist, like those in the Environmental Health Clinic at Women’s College Hospital (WCH). Our experts understand sensitivities like EMS and are diligently trying to further delineate its complexities, educate the medical establishment and manage patients.
That’s why on May 23, our Environmental Health Clinic hosted physicians, experts and patients at WCH for a day of interactive lectures, to share and discuss ideas about the issues surrounding EMS.
“We need to create more awareness about this condition,” said Dr. Riina Bray, medical director, Environmental Health Clinic, WCH. “Health-care practitioners need to better understand EMS so they can help their patients prevent and manage their symptoms. The public needs to know how to protect themselves from the broad range of health impacts electromagnetic fields have on their minds and bodies.”
Dr. Magda Havas, associate professor of environmental and resource studies, Trent University, presented Electromagnetic sensitivity: Is it psychological or physiological? She challenged the critics’ suggestion that symptoms are solely psychological by providing real examples of patients whose symptoms subsided when wireless technology was removed from their environment. Scientifically sound guidelines for safety were also reviewed, with the knowledge that the standards in North America fall abysmally short of those elsewhere.
A grand rounds lecture featuring Dr. Ray Copes, chief, environmental and occupational health, Public Health Ontario, discussed EMS from a public health perspective. Dr. Copes cited the difficulties in comparing research because there is no one universally-accepted definition of the condition.
In the afternoon, participants had the opportunity to interact in small groups and discuss next steps for patient care, government action and community collaboration.
“Women’s College Hospital is leading the way by hosting workshops like this,” said Dr. Bray. “Working together is the first step to creating a mutual understanding of electromagnetic hypersensitivity and being able to care for and treat patients in the best way possible.”
Dr. Ray Copes
Dr. Ray Copes, chief, environmental and occupational health, Public Health Ontario and Dr. Riina Bray, medical director, Environmental Health Clinic, WCH

Dr. Magda Havas
Dr. Magda Havas, associate professor of environmental and resource studies, Trent University

Resolution On Electromagnetic Health


Resolution On Electromagnetic Health

2012 The U.S. Health Freedom Congress
Schaumburg, IL, June 14, 2012
Submitted by ElectromagneticHealth.org

Whereas electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell phones, cellular antennas, wireless devices, wireless computer equipment, DECT portable phones, wireless ‘smart boards’ in schools, wireless utility ‘smart meters’, etc., have been shown in numerous well documented peer-reviewed studies to lead to biological disregulation, impaired cognitive function, reduced fertility, damaged DNA and increased incidence of acute and chronic conditions, including cancers, heart irregularities, difficulty sleeping, joint pain, dizziness, tinnitus and stress; and

Whereas the risk from electromagnetic fields involves the low frequency ELF fields (electric and magnetic fields), intermediate frequencies (dirty electricity) and high frequencies (radiofrequency (RF), including microwaves as emitted by cell phone and consumer wireless technologies), and both ELF and RF fields have been separately classified by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as Class 2B ‘Possible Carcinogens’ and have been the subject of numerous resolutions warning of the risks from international scientists, physicians, psychologists and government agencies; and

Be it acknowledged that:
 
Read FULL ANNOUNCEMENT and the COMPLETE RESOLUTION ON ELECTROMAGNETIC HEALTH here:
http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/resolution/

Swedish Parliament Decides Inaccessibility Recognized as Discrimination.


To everyone!

BIG NEWS!!


The Swedish Parliament has decided that inaccessibility is be recognized as discrimination.

At 4:03 pm yesterday, June 14, 2012, the Swedish Parliament decided to inform it's Government of it's intention that inaccessibility is to be covered by the Swedish discrimination legislation. The Government must promptly return to the Parliament with a legal bill.

http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Utskottens-dokument/Betankanden/Arenden/201112/AU11/
I lack the proper words. This is BIG! After all the years of constant begging and nagging, finally yet a goal is reached.


Best regards
Yours
Olle

(Olle Johansson, professor
The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm
Sweden)


Betänkande 2011/12:AU11 Diskriminering som har samband med kön i fråga om försäkringstjänster m.m.



Ärendet är avslutat. Debatterades: 13 juni 2012. Beslutades: 14 juni 2012



Sammanfattning av beslutet

Diskrimineringslagen har ett allmänt förbud mot könsdiskriminering vid tillhandahållande av försäkringstjänster. Detta förbud ersätts nu med ett särskilt förbud mot att ha olika försäkringspremier och ersättningar för kvinnor och män om skillnaderna grundas på beräkningar där kön har använts som en faktor. Lagändringen börjar gälla den 21 december 2012, och kravet på könsneutrala beräkningar ska gälla nya försäkringsavtal efter denna tidpunkt.
Riksdagen gjorde ett tillkännagivande till regeringen om att bristande tillgänglighet för personer med funktionsnedsättning ska omfattas av svensk diskrimineringslagstiftning. Regeringen ska skyndsamt återkomma till riksdagen med ett lagförslag. Riksdagen menar att frågan om bristande tillgänglighet som en diskrimineringsgrund redan har utretts. Det finns inte anledning att ytterligare fördröja en lagreglering på området. En avgörande förutsättning är, enligt riksdagen, att reformen införs på ett samhällsekonomiskt ansvarsfullt sätt.
Riksdagens beslut:
Kammaren biföll utskottets förslag till beslut.
Utskottets förslag till beslut:
Bifall till propositionen. Tillkännagivande om att regeringen skyndsamt ska återkomma till riksdagen med ett lagförslag om förbud mot diskriminering på grund av bristande tillgänglighet för personer med funktionsnedsättning. Därmed bifaller riksdagen motionerna 2010/11:A237, 2010/11:A238, 2010/11:A298, 2010/11:A311, 2010/11:A316, 2010/11:A410, 2010/11:A421, 2010/11:A422 yrkande 1, 2011/12:C245 yrkande 1, 2011/12:A214, 2011/12:A274 yrkande 1, 2011/12:A278 yrkande 1, 2011/12:A282, 2011/12:A285, 2011/12:A309 yrkande 1, 2011/12:A316, 2011/12:A348 och 2011/12:A350 yrkande 1. Avslag på övriga motioner.






Summary of decision

Discrimination Act has a general prohibition against sex discrimination in the provision of insurance services. This ban is now replaced with a specific prohibition to have different premiums and benefits for men and women of the differences are based on calculations in which gender has been used as a factor. The amendment will take effect December 21, 2012, and the need for gender-specific estimates have to apply to new contracts after that date.
Parliament made an announcement to the Government that the lack of accessibility for persons with disabilities to be covered by Swedish anti-discrimination legislation. The Government must promptly return to Parliament with a bill. Parliament believes that the issue of lack of availability of a ground already has been investigated. There is no reason to further delay a legal regulation in this area. One deciding factor is, according to the parliament, that the reform is introduced in an economically responsible manner.
Parliament's decision:
The House approved the committee's decision.
The committee's proposals:
Assent to the Bill. Notice of the Government urgently to return to Parliament with a bill prohibiting discrimination on grounds of lack of accessibility for persons with disabilities. This parliament approves motions 2010/11: A237, 2010/11: A238, 2010/11: A298, 2010/11: A311, 2010/11: A316, 2010/11: A410, 2010/11: A421, 2010/11: A422 claim 1, 2011/12: C245 claim 1, 2011/12: A214, 2011/12: A274 claim 1, 2011/12: A278 claim 1, 2011/12: A282, 2011/12: A285, 2011/12: A309 claim 1, 2011/12: A316, 2011/12: A348 and 2011/12: A350 claim firstRejection of other motions.

Tory MP calls on Bell to remove ‘intolerable’ cellular tower in riding


Tory MP calls on Bell to remove ‘intolerable’ cellular tower in riding

 - June 16th, 2012
A Tory MP has sounded the alarm about the safety of a cellular tower located near residential homes and a daycare in his riding of Oakville, Ont.
Terence Young stood in the House of Commons this week to ask Bell Canada to remove the powerful cellular antennae immediately.
Bell Canada has placed powerful antennae 11 metres from a child’s bedroom and over the heads of our fighters and refuses to remove them. This is intolerable…I say to the president of Bell Canada, Mr. George Cope: Tear down those antennae.
But Bell isn’t prepared to back down and communications representative Jason Laszlo maintains the company is following federal guidelines.
To meet local demand for enhanced wireless service, we simply added equipment to a pre-existing communications tower…we consulted with Halton Regional Police who operate the tower and then secured approvals from Industry Canada.
In May, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified electromagnetic radiation (EMR) as “possibly
carcinogenic.”
In a letter to his constituents, Young said he wants to see stricter federal regulations in Canada and vowed to consider introducing a private member’s bill on the issue.
There is no broadly based consensus regarding proof that EMR from cellular antennae on towers is a serious health risk, but I believe in the precautionary principle when it comes to your health: Better safe than sorry.
Dr. Magda Havas, who studies environmental contaminants at Trent University, says Canadians have the right to know about antennae in their area.
You should be informed that an antenna is coming in to your neighbourhood and you should have the ability to say yes or no,” she said. “We are not allowing people to have a say in this. It just doesn’t make any sense in a democratic society.
Companies currently have to issue an advisory to municipalities if a tower is more than 15 meters high, but Havas says shorter – and possibly more
dangerous towers – are being put up without notice.
NDP health critic Libby Davies agrees federal intervention is needed.
The status quo is completely unsatisfactory…people have no recourse to respond to a unilateral decision by telecommunications companies to put these towers up.
http://blogs.canoe.ca/eyeonthehill/general/tory-mp-calls-on-bell-to-remove-intolerable-cellular-tower-in-riding/#more-73811

EMF Protection – Are You Clear On The Dangers And What To Do About Them


EMF Protection – Are You Clear On The Dangers And What To Do About Them

Posted by Lloyd on February 28, 2011 under Electromagnetic protection | Read the First Comment

Terms like “EMF protection” and “EMF awareness” still don’t mean much to most people.
There are a whole lot of areas of our lives which have become regulated, we moan, but its done for our protection.
Cigarettes for instance, you can still smoke, but the dangers are clearly spelled out and there is a minimum age in most countries.
Alcohol, it’s the same idea. Lead pipes and asbestos, again tightly controlled if not banned in certain countries.
But on the issue of EMFs (electromagnetic fields) generally and cell phones particularly where are the safeguards?

EMF Protection – What Are The Current Safeguards

emf protectionPretty much anywhere around the world, a 12 year kid can go in a shop and providing he’s got the money he can walk out with a full functioning EMF emitting cell phone. He can take out a monthly contract and use it to his heart’s content and (apart from a few US states where information now appears on the packaging) nobody worries about the consequences.
So why is that? Is it because there aren’t any consequences? No its not, there are lots of consequences. Has nobody ever took a long look at these consequences and tried to put together some sound advice?
Actually they have. In  November 2009, in Seletun in Norway, a Scientific Panelcomprised of international experts met to discuss the biological effects of  EMFs. They reviewed all this mounting scientific evidence and they talked about the public health implications of the unprecedented global exposures to them.

What Did The Scientists Conclude About EMF Protection ?

Olle Johansson following this meeting stated ”It has become obvious that new biologically based public exposure standards taking into account long term as well as non thermal exposures are urgently needed to protect public health worldwide.”
The Seletun panel called for a new approach to EMF protection particularly for childrenand the growth and development of the fetus.
The scientists found that even at low-intensity, what the scientists called non-thermal bio-effects, adverse health effects are demonstrated. They concluded that current safety limits for EMF protection as promulgated by the ICNIRP and IEEE/FCC was both inadequate and obsolete.
Sadly, as of writing this post today, nothing has been done to apply the scientist’s recommendations. But I wanted to share them with you. Below is a short presentation by Olle Johansson of the panel. Underneath this I have laid out in layman’s terms their recommendations for EMF protection.

THE SELETUN SCIENTIFIC PANELS 10 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EMF PROTECTION

1) Global populations are not sufficiently protected from electromagnetic fields from emerging the new wireless technologies, the consequences of which are now affecting the lives of billions of people;
2)  They said that sensitive populations may be additionally vulnerable to health risks with EMFs , that’s to say, the elderly,  ill,  genetically and/or immunologically challenged) and children and fetuses; Their EMF exposure is mainly involuntary and they are less protected by existing public safety standards;
3) They urged governments to put aside the notion of only acting on EMFs when a scientific certainty was established. Instead they should act on the basis of “prudent public health planning principles”. If we wait to get the conclusive scientific evidence everyone would like this could mean basically doing nothing for decades. By the time we do act the public health consequences could be irreparable not to mention the ensuing economic harm
4) They urged governments to make clear that the burden of proof of safety rests lies solely with the  “wireless industry”, not with the users and consumers.
5) EMF exposures should be reduced now rather than waiting for further proof.
6) That Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is inadequate and misguides people about EMF safety and risk.
7) An international disease registry needs to be set up to track time trends of illnesses to correlate them with exposures. Tracking effects of EMFs on children and sensitive electrohypersensitive populations needs to be made a high priority.
8.) Pre-market EMF testing should be made mandatory. The evidence needs to show that the wireless device does not cause harm before it is brought on to the market.
9) The public safety standards need to be the same for workers as for the general public.
10) People with electrical sensitivity symptoms should be classified as functionally impaired.  ES or EHS should be regarded as having an environmental cause.
Click here to download the full report.
What does all this mean for you? The message is clear, these scientists did not mince their words, now is the time to act on the issue of EMF protection. I feel sure governments will act, but when? You need to evaluate your EMF exposure and take action now.

Article about Dafna Tachover & EHS - Radiation Victim - Published in an Israeli paper Yediot Ahcharonot


SUNDAY, JUNE 17, 2012

Article about Dafna Tachover & EHS - Radiation Victim - Published in an Israeli paper Yediot Ahcharonot

On June 15th, an article about me and EHS was published in the leading paper in Israel, in its weekend issue in its most important section 'HAMUSAF'. Following is a picture of the article and a translation to English. 

ב 15 ביוני פורסם מאמר עלי ועל רגישותי לקרינה במוסף סוף השבוע בעיתון ידיעות אחרונות.
להלן תמונת המאמר (ניתן לקרא את הטקסט לאחר לחיצה על התמונה) ותרגומו לאנגלית.




לחץ על התמונות כדי לקרא את הכתבה המלאה

Radiation Victim

In an isolated house, in the mountains of a natural reserve in northern New York, far away from antennas and cell phones, from laptops and wireless Internet, lives attorney Dafna Tachover. She escaped there after being diagnosed with Electromagnetic Hyper Sensitivity. From there, she conducts her fight for those who suffer from this condition. “The life I wanted to live I already lost” she says, “but not my fighting spirit”.

By Smadar Shir. Photos by Nadav Neuhaus.

It was the happiest time in the life of Dafna Tachover, a lawyer. After years of intense work as senior executive in an investment company in Manhattan, she married Dr. Richard Stein, a doctor and a scientist who received a research position in Princeton University, so they moved to Princeton and hoped to change from a couple to a family. The first step in her plan to start a law practice was to purchase a new laptop. “I brought the laptop to our leased apartment, I took it out from the box and started working” says Tachover, 39, going back to July 19th, 2009, the day her life changed. “A few minutes after I started working, I started feeling vibrations in the area near the mouse pad. Then I started feeling tingling in my feet and my hands.”

“The next day I returned the defected laptop to the store and received a new one but I got a weird sensation. As if someone was putting my brain on freeze. I could not think, I could not breathe, as if someone is strangling me. The third laptop I brought home caused my heart to beat violently. The fourth time, I did not trust a regular store and I drove to an “Apple Center”, but the computer I purchased there gave me inhumane headaches. Until then, I never had to take a pill for a headache.

“In three weeks I changed 5 laptops, all of them were discovered to be defective, and all caused me symptoms that I did not know before, such as nausea and memory problems. I suddenly could not touch my cell phone and could not sleep in my apartment. I thought it had to do with electricity, but I was not sure exactly what it was”.

She was not the only one who did not know. The family doctor asked her of she wants to see a psychiatrist, the cardiologist referred her to an occupational clinic, and a neurologist who checked her told her that, had he not talked to her, he would assumed it was a mental issue.

The name of the condition, she heard it for the first time from the secretary of a doctor in NY, Electromagnetic Hyper Sensitivity, EHS. Those who suffer from this condition experience severe symptoms when they are exposed to electromagnetic fields, especially from radiation from RF and Microwave frequencies that are used for cellular technologies, including cell phones, cell towers, antennas, radars, and wireless routers that are used for WIFI.

The typical symptoms include chest pains, difficulty to breathe, pulse and blood pressure changes, headaches, sleeping, memory, and cognitive problems, weakness to the point of fainting, nausea, pain in the ears, nerve problems in the eyes, skin rashes etc.

Since Tachover was diagnosed, from a healthy and vibrant woman who dreams of maneuvering between career and motherhood, she transformed into a disabled person that cannot be in the presence of other humans. In the most difficult times she drove for hours trying to find a parking lot where her ears would stop getting electric shocks, a symptom that signals that there is a wireless network in the area and put black sheets so those passing by would not see her from the outside when she tried to sleep.

            Today she lives in the Catskills, an isolated natural reserve in the northern part of New York, far away from neighbors, in-between mountains that block the radiation. “Some people may think that this is paradise”, she smiling sadly, “but I never dreamed of ‘glorious isolation’, and I feel as if I am serving a life sentence here. “

“I was forced to give up my profession because I am unable to get to court, which has WIFI, and I cannot go on a train or stand beside people who are using cell phones. The pains are intolerable, it feels as if I am burning. I separated from my husband when I saw the extent to which my condition was causing him to feel miserable, and I also gave up the dream of motherhood”.

Even in her isolated house she does not have peace. Ten seconds before we hear the airplane she is already folding from pain, the refrigerator and the range are disconnected, and she cannot sleep on the second floor because of the proximity to the power lines, and in front of her monitor, which has an external transformer and a screen that blocks magnetic fields, she is able to sit only at a certain angle and not for long.

“The life I wanted to live I already lost”, she says, “but not my fighting spirit. The only reason for my life now is to help other people who suffer from this horrendous condition, to inform the public, and to force governments to take action and to bring to justice all those who abused and betrayed their duty to protect the public.

“This mission seems almost impossible, considering the fact that I cannot fly, drive on a highway, or get to any public places to reclaim what was taken from me in the name of progress, but I know that if I would not fight, no one would do it. In days of agony I am trying to look at the full half of the glass and tell myself that the life that was forced on me has caused me to become involved with public work that is significantly more important than the life I would have lived if it had continued on its planned course”.

THEY USED TO CALL ME ‘MISS GADGETS’

Her normal life course included childhood in Beer-Sheva, army service as a commander of the computer center of the army operation center, law school, and landing in Manhattan as legal and business adviser in Boymelgreen, an investments company.

Six years ago she met her husband. “On the internet”, she is smiling a bitter smile, “while I was sitting in a coffee shop and complaining when would the day when there is free WIFI everywhere come”. I never thought about the dangers of the cellular-wireless technology. On the contrary, I had two cell phones, and I was called ‘Miss Gadgets’. I worked with wireless internet fourteen hours a day and spoke on my cell phone seven hours a day, and I laughed when Richard used to ask me to get my hands off the cell phone for a minute”.

When she got the condition, Tachover decided to go to Israel for a home visit. “I hoped I would feel better in Israel”, she explains. “In my parents’ apartment in Modiin I felt a bit better, but when I drove to visit my brother in Ashdod I got intense pain in my head, like knives. I looked up and in front of me I saw the huge cell phone antennas on top of the roof. The first thing I said was “For God’s sake, there are children here”. “I truly thought more about the harm that is caused to the children than about my own pain”.

When she returned to the Unites States, she was looking for a place without cell towers, and got to Green Bank in West Virginia. “There is an astronomy center there, which belongs to the Federal Government and it is the only place in the US in which cell towers are forbidden, because they would interfere with the reception from out of space. I slept in a tent when there were -20°C outside, but at least I could think clearly”.

But at home, in Princeton, my condition deteriorated. “I could not be in the apartment, I slept in my car, I could not go anywhere – not to the library, not to a coffee place, not even in the street. I felt like an outcast. I wanted to commit suicide, not because I was depressed but for practical reasons. How could I survive in this wireless world and with such unbearable pains?”

Because she did not want to separate from her husband, she looked for an isolated place without cell towers and neighbors without WIFI, to enable her husband to maintain his position in the University, and she found a place on a farm in Hillsborough, NJ. “I, who never even had a dog, took care of horses, goats, lamas, and a ship. When I called my sister in Israel, her 12 year old daughter said that finally I speak like Dafna used to speak, not slowly and heavily, but still the power lines in the area hurt me a lot”.

In the process of moving to the isolated house in which she lives now, she also divorced her husband. “Not with anger and not in a quarrel”, she emphasizes. “One day I came to meet him at the university, I sat with my hands on my ears suffering and tortured when a female friend told us with excitement and happiness about her new appointment. Richard looked at me and I saw the sadness in his eyes. He wanted me to be happy as well and be able to reflect happiness. But we both knew that it was not going to happen”.

HOW WOULD I GO BACK TO ISRAEL?

The medical establishment is suspicious of this phenomenon, if it is willing to consider it at all. In 2005 the World Health Organization determined that “The symptoms that are suffered by people with EHS are real and are significantly different from one person to another. Irrespective of the phenomenon, the sufferers may develop a real disability. There are no accurate criteria to diagnose EHS and no correlation was established between EHS and radiation. Therefore, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, and it is unclear whether it represents one medical problem”.

The data regarding the rate of people suffering from the condition are not up to date and controversial, and estimates range from single cases to a million people and up to 5% of the population – depending on the country in which the survey was conducted. Nevertheless, despite the lack of research and sometimes the mocking attitude, there are over 30 support groups around the world for people suffering from this condition.

Tachover has an explanation to the disregard of the establishment towards the needs of the patients. According to her, thousands of studies were conducted prior to the commercialization of cellular technology, “but the private companies, those with financial interests, preferred to present people with EHS as suffering from a mental condition, and the funding of research about this condition was prevented”.

Tachover also provides some data: according to her, Sweden recognizes the condition and about 3% of the population is receiving disability benefits. There are villages in Sweden for people with EHS, and in the hospitals there are special rooms adjusted for people with the condition. According to Tachover, in Germany the number of people with EHS was estimated to be 8%. The Austrian Medical Association published recent guidelines to doctors on how to diagnose EHS and how to help patients. Spain recognizes the condition as a permanent disability. “Last year, after a comprehensive review of the issue of radiation, The Council of Europe determined that EHS is a real condition, not a psychosomatic and not mental, and that it is caused by electromagnetic radiation”.

If so many people are sick, how come we don’t hear of them?

“When you live like a refugee and nomad, and cannot even speak on a phone, how would you fight? In addition, many do not know that the cause to their symptoms is the radiation and many are misdiagnosed, others don’t know that such a condition exists, and there are also those who are afraid of the stigma”.

What hurts more: the symptoms or the stigma?

“It is sad to see that there are people who try to present people like me as suffering from a mental condition. The people with EHS that I have met are the most talented and sane people I know - Doctors, a pilot, a scientist who worked for the NASA, an engineer. They are escaping to farms in Nevada, to caves in the Alps, to places that no normal human being would live in, unless there is no other choice. Even to those who mock us I do not wish the pain we are experiencing and on the other hand – those who are able to continue and live with this condition and keep their sanity are capable of standing any challenge”.

Are you hoping to become the Erin Brockovich of this condition?

I want to fight the Government. The reason the industry is causing so much damage is because the governments, through their public officials, allow it to do so. Brockovich fought to get monetary damages, while I am fighting to demand basic human rights to people who are under intense physical pain. Money as compensation at this stage is much less important than finding a way to enable people to live. On a daily basis I hear of people who committed suicide, tried to commit suicide, or want to commit suicide. And I understand them”.

How do you survive financially?

In the meanwhile from savings, but sooner or later they would run out and I have no idea what I would do then. Since I divorced I do not have medical insurance, I am not entitled to unemployment benefits as I did not work in the US long enough and if, let’s assume that tomorrow morning I would collapse financially or from loneliness and decide to leave my advocacy activity in the US and come back home to Israel, how would I be able to get to the airport? How would I go on a plane?”

In any event, she intends to also bring her advocacy activity to Israel, and this includes a demand for the immediate recognition of the condition, for ensuring that doctors are informed about the condition, and the top priority – to demand to ban WIFI from schools.

With hand on your heart, do you really believe that your activity would stop progress? 

Progress? You call this progress? If something kills us it does not advance us. The nuclear power plants and the nuclear waste do not represent progress either, but a disaster. I think it is a legitimate demand to ask for areas free from radiation, that public places would not have WIFI, that hospitals would have rooms which are shielded from radiation and that in government offices people would be required to deposit their cell phones so that me and other people like me would be able to receive services. We are also human beings with rights.
http://ehsfighback.blogspot.com/2012/06/article-about-dafna-tachover-ehs.html

Why Are Cell Phones Using the Wrong Safety Standards?


Why Are Cell Phones Using the Wrong Safety Standards?

January 17 2012



By Dr. Mercola
Over 5 billion people worldwide, about 80 percent of the world's population, now has a cell phone.
In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) determines maximum allowed exposures from cell phone radiation, a determination that has the potential to impact public health on a massive scale, especially in light of increasing evidence that exposure to such radiation may cause cancer, brain changes and other health problems.
That the FCC is in charge of this regulation is in and of itself perplexing, considering theFCC states:
" … the FCC's primary jurisdiction does not lie in the health and safety area, and it must rely on other agencies and organizations for guidance in these matters."
Well, according to a new report by Om Gandhi, PhD, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Utah and colleagues, "Exposure Limits: The Underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children," the FCC standards are based on a one-size-fits-all-model that seriously underestimates RF exposures to those most vulnerable, including children.

Children Using Cell Phones May be Exposed to Double the FCC's RF Exposure Limit

According to the new report, absorbed cell phone radiation is seriously underestimated, particularly in children. This is because the cell phone certification process uses a plastic model of the head called the Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin (SAM), representing the top 10% of U.S. military recruits, on which to base its measurements. Unfortunately, one mannequin head is not sufficient to represent an entire population, as obviously we all have different head sizes, especially children, and the model does not allow for variations in absorption among different tissues.
According to a press release about the study by one of the study's authors, Devra Davis, PhD of the Environmental Health Trust:
"The existing process is based on a large man whose 40 brain tissues are assumed to be exactly the same. A far better system relies on anatomically based models of people of various ages, including pregnant women, that can determine the absorbed radiation in all tissue types, and can account for the increased absorption in children. It allows for cell phones to be certified with the most vulnerable users in mind—children—consistent with the "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) approach taken in setting standards for using radiological devices."
As you might suspect, a head mannequin based on an adult male is going to yield different results than one based on a child, and this is what is so concerning. As is the fact that the method is based on a plastic head when a better method that better simulates actual biology impact is available -- See discussion of the FDTD (Finite Difference Time Domain) SAR assessment methodology which uses MRI-scans of a set of real human beings in different body sizes to determine the amount of radiation absorbed in every tissue (not just the brain) when exposed to a given phone atElectromagneticHealth.org.
According to the new report by Gandhi et al:
"The existing cell phone certification process … greatly underestimat[es] the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for typical mobile phone users, especially children. A superior computer simulation certification process has been approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) but is not employed to certify cell phones.
… Radiofrequency (RF) exposure to a head smaller than SAM will absorb a relatively higher SAR. Also, SAM uses a fluid having the average electrical properties of the head that cannot indicate differential absorption of specific brain tissue, nor absorption in children or smaller adults. The SAR for a 10-year-old is up to 153% higher than the SAR for the SAM model. When electrical properties are considered, a child's head's absorption can be over two times greater, and absorption of the skull's bone marrow can be ten times greater than adults.
Therefore, a new certification process is needed that incorporates different modes of use, head sizes, and tissue properties. Anatomically based models should be employed in revising safety standards for these ubiquitous modern devices and standards should be set by accountable, independent groups."
Alvaro Augusto de Salles, Ph.D., Professor, Electrical Engineering Dept., Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil and one of the paper's authors, says:
"The higher risk of tissue damage from common cell phone use demonstrated in this study, using the computer simulation method of SAR assessment, suggests prudent public health policies, globally, would call for cell phones to be manufactured without the ability to use the phone against the head, nor with a speakerphone, but only allow communication with a wired headset. This would dramatically lower risk of biological, and genetic, damage to the population, and to children and other especially vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, by keeping the radiation, thereby, away from both the head and body."
In an interview with Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org, de Salles said the reason a headset is preferable to using a speaker phone is because the battery uses more power when in speakerphone mode, increasing exposure to the battery's magnetic fields.

Children Should Not Use Cell Phones

This new information reinforces the importance that children need to be protected from cell phones, not allowed to use them on a regular, or even limited, basis. If you are not yet aware of the increased risks to children from cell phones, I suggest viewing the following image, used with permission from the book Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution, which clearly shows the differences in depth of penetration between adults and young children.
cellphone radiation
This shows quite clearly that electromagnetic fields are likely to penetrate the brain far more deeply for children than adults. In fact, due to their thinner skulls, smaller brains and softer brain tissue, children are FAR more susceptible to damage from cell phone use than adults.
An excellent new report on risks to children was recently published by the Mobilewise charity in the UK, "Mobile Phone Health Risks: the case for action to protect children."  It includes a chart of more than 200 peer-reviewed studies from a range of research institutions that link mobiles to serious health problems. These include brain tumors and impact on fertility, genes, the blood-brain barrier and melatonin production, as well as other biological effects thought to have a role in the development of cancer. Endorsed by a number of prominent doctors and scientists, the Mobilewise report on the public health issue related to the impact on children highlights the body of evidence that has been "obscured in the debate over these risks," according to Vicky Fobel, Director of Mobilewise.
We encourage you to read this report, and to print the list of studies with summaries and links to the cited research, and to share these with your communities.
The powerful Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly has also echoed the warning I have been making for years now and concluded that evidence is strong enough to warrant immediate action to protect children and others from the potentially harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation emitted by wireless devices:
"… non-ionizing frequencies, be they sourced from extremely low frequencies, power lines or certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony, appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals, as well as the human body when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values.
One must respect the precautionary principle and revise the current threshold values; waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case in the past with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco."
The European Council has taken the exemplary step of recommending that mobile phones and wireless networks be banned in classrooms and schools. They note, correctly, that young people and children are most vulnerable to emissions of electromagnetic fields and suggest the following:
  • " … develop within different ministries (education, environment and health) targeted information campaigns aimed at teachers, parents and children to alert them to the specific risks of early, ill-considered and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves
  • " …ban all mobile phones, DECT phones or WiFi or WLAN systems from classrooms and schools, as advocated by some regional authorities, medical associations and civil society organizations"

Why You Need to be Careful With Your Cell Phone

I'm the first to acknowledge that the technology behind cell phones has changed the way many conduct business and interact with their friends and family on a daily basis. It's an incredibly convenient and useful technology, which is why it has exploded the way it has …But I'm also convinced, and suspect you'll agree, that these benefits are in no way worth it if they end up sacrificing your life or health to a brain tumor or other disorder!
Devra Davis, PhD of the Environmental Health Trust has written a new book - Disconnect - in which she exposes research showing that radiation from cell phones has been linked to:
DNA damageMemory loss
Alzheimer's diseaseCancer
Breakdown of your brain's defensesReduced sperm count

Even more revealing in Davis' book is her assessment of the "dark side" of the cell phone industry, and their attempts to keep cell phone dangers quiet. As TIME magazine reported:
"As Davis argues in some of the best passages of Disconnect, it could be that we haven't established the dangers of cell phone use because we haven't asked the right questions—and that might be on purpose.
"If you don't want to know the answer," Davis says, "don't ask the question." Much of the research into the biological effects of cell phone radiation has been underwritten by the... cell phone industry, and you don't have to be a raging paranoiac to wonder whether that money might have an impact on the conclusions of those thousands of studies."
It's worth remembering that the telecommunication industry is much larger than the medical industrial complex, and they have far more influence than the drug companies. They're also mirroring many of the same tactics as the tobacco industry to pedal their wares. This includes attempting to discredit researchers who publish unfavorable cell phone studies.
TIME reported:
"Davis shows that independent studies on cell phone radiation found dangers at more than twice the rate of industry-funded studies—though because the cell phone industry is the source of much of the funding of cell phone studies, there are far more of the latter.
… Time and again, she [Davis] shows the way that industry has been able to twist science just enough to stave off the possibility of any regulation—and finds that researchers are afraid of challenging the status quo, lest they find themselves suddenly out of a job, denied the lifeblood of research money.
Most of the few brave researchers who challenge the prevailing wisdom on cell phone radiation—like the electrical engineer Om Gandhi or the bioengineer Henry Lai—are senior scientists, secure in their positions and their tenure. But a young researcher just starting out is far more vulnerable to industry pressure. Science isn't as pristine as we imagine it."

As Cell Phone Dangers Become Apparent, Warnings Have Already Been Issued

Despite what you may have heard, the link between cell phone use and brain tumors is well substantiated and backed by more than 100 scientific studies. In 2008, Dr. Vini Gautam Khurana, a Mayo Clinic-trained neurosurgeon with an advanced neurosurgery fellowship in cerebral vascular and tumor microsurgery, concluded:
"There is currently enough evidence and technology available to warrant industry and governments alike in taking immediate steps to reduce exposure of consumers to mobile phone-related electromagnetic radiation and to make consumers clearly aware of potential dangers and how to use this technology sensibly and safely."
Several countries, including Finland, Israel and France, have already issued guidelines for safer cell phone use. The FCC, while distancing itself from any claims that cell phones cause health problems, also recently released steps you can take to reduce your exposure to radiofrequency energy from cell phones. However, it is important to note the FCC has not updated its consumer advice since the World Health Organization classified the radiation as a Class 2B Possible Carcinogen in May 2011.
The FCC requires cell phone manuals to contain guidance on how far away a cell phone should be from your body so the phone's radiation does not exceed federal 'thermal' (only) safety limits. This guidance is in small print and little known. It will surprise most users of cell phones to know that cell phones should not touch your body, but should be held some distance away from your ear or other body parts.
In San Francisco, meanwhile a Fact Sheet at the point of sale, titled "You can limit exposure to Radio-frequency (RF) Energy from your cell phone" may be required.The Fact Sheet, which was approved in San Francisco but is now being contested in court by the CTIA, and under injunction, includes recommendations on:
  1. Limiting cell phone use by children
  2. Using a headset, speakerphone or text instead
  3. Using belt clips and purses to keep distance between your phone and body
  4. Avoiding cell phones in areas with weak signals (elevators, on transit etc.)
  5. Reducing the number and length of calls
On October 4, 2011, however, the wireless industry association, the CTIA, filed a lawsuit in federal court to block the enforcement of San Francisco's "Cell Phone Right to Know" Ordinance, claiming the Ordinance "is barred under the First Amendment and conflicts with federal law governing the safety of wireless devicess" The City of San Francisco is now preparing to defend the legislation.
Andrea Boland, the Maine State Representative, also wanted warnings especially for children and pregnant women to keep cellular devices away from their head and body, but unfortunately a Maine legislative committee rejected her proposal, for now, citing "inconclusive studies" and a concern about "raising fear in people."
Boland said:
"Our cell phone warning label bill passed the Maine House of Representatives…
The Senate Majority Leader worked aggressively to defeat it, and succeeded … Clearly the choice was whether to protect the industry or the consumers."
The issue over what government agency truly has ultimate responsibility for assuring protective safety guidelines—the FCC or the FDA—is one that will surely come to a head, in due course. For now, what are known to be greatly inaccurate safety guidelines, based on the known biological effects, are what are being used to influence courts, at the expense of our health. 
  • If the FCC says it relies on the safety expertise of the FDA, and states it considered opinions from the FDA in setting its safety guidelines, but the FDA officially does not review the safety of radiation-emitting consumer products such as cell phones and PDAs before they can be sold, as it does with new drugs or medical devices, then where is the responsibility for assuring safety actually domiciled?
  • Has responsibility for ascertaining consumer safety potentially fallen through the cracks between these two agencies, resulting in a situation were proper protection of consumer health interests is not taking place?
  • On what basis does the FCC, a communications commission charged with regulating interstate and international communications, not a health agency, have authority to ascertain safety and establish safety guidelines, such as the SAR limit for cell phones, in the first place? On what basis has the FCC assumed this responsibility?
  • If the SAR value is a measure of the power or heating effects from a phone, and is a physics measure unrelated to biology, what regulatory agency is looking at the biological effects? This would include biological effects from all forms of radiation being emitted by a cell phone, including 1) the heating effects (that the SAR attempts to reflect), 2) the non-heating effects from the frequencies and modulation, and 3) the low frequency (ELF) fields emitted by the devices.
  • Why then do the present guidelines not address the non-thermal biological effects? Or the ELF Fields from the batteries?
  • What public health expertise, if any, exists at the FCC and who specifically set the current standards and what was their background in biology?
  • Research has shown source of scientific funding in this field influences outcomes. In determining SAR safety guidelines for cell phones, how much does the FCC rely on telecom industry funded science, as opposed to independent science where there would not be a commercial conflict of interest?
  • Given evidence exists showing that in certain amplitude windows a lower SAR value can result in greater brain effects than a higher SAR value (increased neuron death and blood brain barrier permeability, for example), suggesting some biological effects do not occur in a linear, dose-response manner. Thus, the SAR may be a wholly inadequate measure of safety on these grounds. Given this, and the fact that the SAR does not reflect either the non-thermal biological effects, or the ELF effects, why is the SAR used as a measure of safety?
  • Experts say a true biological standard for cell phone radiation exposure should be set, especially for children, elderly and vulnerable populations, instead of relying on estimates of safety based on a physics measure that only measures the heating effect. Is either the FCC or the FDA working on biologically based guidelines or even studying biological effects? What scientific experts with backgrounds in EMF effects on biology are Advisors to the FCC and FDA?
  • How is it that the FCC can state, "There is no scientific evidence to date that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other health effects, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss", when there is voluminous amounts of evidence showing that people are experiencing these problems as well as evidence of biological change at the molecular, cellular, organ, neurological and immunological levels? Is the FCC relying on telecom industry advisors in formulating the above statement who may perhaps have a commercial conflict of interest and not want the biological effects to be known?
  • Have the economic benefits to the U.S. government, in the forms of telecom industry corporate income tax, user taxes and fees, employment and social security taxes, jobs and job growth, employee income taxes, income taxes from landlords agreeing to place antennas on their property, spectrum license fees and more, unduly influenced government officials such that they have sacrificed public health to give the appearance of a stronger economy, when in fact the health consequences from cell phones and wireless technologies may ultimately burden the economy more than the short-term economic benefits?
We join ElectromagneticHealth.org and many other advocacy groups in calling on Congress to delve into the issue of FCC/FDA responsibility and accountability on matters of cell phone safety and to act to protect the public's health.

Use a Cell Phone? Here's How to Stay Safe

All the evidence points to the fact that our current safety standards are completely inadequate, so it's up to you to take measures to protect yourself and your children. While you can't completely avoid radiation in today's wireless world, you can at least minimize your exposure by heeding the following advice:
Children Should Always Avoid Using Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults, because of their thinner skull bones.
Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call.
Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness.
Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them every single time.
If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are no safer during calls, but at least many of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made.
Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won't help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers.
Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, they may not be as damaging to your health. Another option is to just simply turn the portable phone off, only using it when you specifically need the convenience of moving about while on a call.
Ideally it would be helpful to turn off your base station every night before you go to bed.
You can find RF meters as well as remediation supplies at www.emfsafetystore.com. But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.
Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.
Also seek to avoid carrying your phone on your body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility. (See ElectromagneticHealth.org's Letter to Parents on Fertility and Other Risks to Children from Wireless Technologies)
Don't Assume One Cell Phone is Safer Than Another: There's no such thing as a "safe" cell phone.
Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.
Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used.
If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children.
Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded -- and most of them are not -- the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient information carrying radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain.
Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.
The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.
I strongly urge you to take the above precautions to reduce your risk and the risk to your children, who are even more vulnerable to long-term damage. I also invite you to help raise awareness by sharing this information with your loved ones.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/17/cell-phones-using-the-wrong-safety-standards.aspx