Toronto’s cell tower radiation guidelines to stay

Toronto’s cell tower radiation guidelines to stay

Nestor E. Arellano

@nestorarellano 
Published: November 12th, 2013

GOVERNMENT NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Health guidelines concerning the allowable level of radio frequency (RF) radiation emitted by cellular towers in Toronto will remain in place despite a recommendation from the city’s medical health officer to drop the existing safety policy.

The recommendation by Dr. McKeown, medical officer of health for Toronto to cancel the city’s Prudent Avoidance policy regarding wireless RF emissions from cell towers in the municipality, failed to garner the needed majority votes when the Toronto Board of Health voted on the matter last week, according to the Canadians 4 Safe Technology (C4ST), a not-for-profit volunteer organization focus on bringing awareness about the dangers of radiation from technology.

City Council adopted Prudent Avoidance (PA) in 2008. Under the PA policy providers installing new cellular towers in the city are requested to keep wireless RF emissions 100 times below Safety Code 6. Safety Code 6 is a the exposure guideline used puts in place by health Canada since the 1980s that governs emissions from cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, smart meters and other consumer goods including baby monitors.

Compliance with PA is voluntary.

“It took conviction for the board members to keep this visionary policy in place,” Frank Clegg, CEO of C4ST, said in a statement today. “When the largest city in Canada thinks that Health Canada is not doing enough to protect Canadians, that is significant.”

Read more: http://www.itworldcanada.com/article/torontos-cell-tower-radiation-guideline-to-stay/86625#ixzz2lKqcDIaC]

or visit http://www.itworldcanada.com for more Canadian IT News 

Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system1).

Rev Environ Health. 2013;28(2-3):75-84. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2013-0004.

Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system1).

Havas M.

Abstract

Abstract Exposure to electrosmog generated by electric, electronic, and wireless technology is accelerating to the point that a portion of the population is experiencing adverse reactions when they are exposed. The symptoms of electrohypersensitivity (EHS), best described as rapid aging syndrome, experienced by adults and children resemble symptoms experienced by radar operators in the 1940s to the 1960s and are well described in the literature. An increasingly common response includes clumping (rouleau formation) of the red blood cells, heart palpitations, pain or pressure in the chest accompanied by anxiety, and an upregulation of the sympathetic nervous system coincident with a downregulation of the parasympathetic nervous system typical of the "fight-or-flight" response. Provocation studies presented in this article demonstrate that the response to electrosmog is physiologic and not psychosomatic. Those who experience prolonged and severe EHS may develop psychologic problems as a consequence of their inability to work, their limited ability to travel in our highly technologic environment, and the social stigma that their symptoms are imagined rather than real.

PMID:

 

24192494

 

[PubMed - in process]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24192494

Driven to distraction: bringing your own device to school could hinder learning

Driven to distraction: bringing your own device to school could hinder learning

Technology is everywhere now and it’s beginning to affect learning in the classroom. Technology image from www.shutterstock.com

With technology becoming cheaper, more powerful and more mobile, a new trend in education is emerging – bring your own device (BYOD).

Borrowing from the business world, bringing your own device simply refers to students bringing in their own portable phones, tablets and computers to use in the classroom.

Much attention has been paid to the financial and infrastructure issues associated with this trend, like problems with network security and the toll it takes on wifi networks. There are also important equity issues – after all, not every student can afford an iPad.

But less attention has been given to how it will impact student learning. And there is some evidence that it could be distracting students more than it’s helping them.

The pros and cons

Schools around the world are putting BYOD policies in place, but each school has to weigh up the risks and the potential benefits.

In a practical sense, it can allow students to carry a device with them that they are familiar with and do not need to learn how to navigate. The availability of apps and easy access to information via wifi or the cellular network also opens up a world of possibilities for enhancing the learning experience when students are at school or university.

The downside to students bringing their own devices is that there is a need for better infrastructure and support services that can work across multiple platforms and operating systems. There is also the problem of supporting students in class. Teachers are not necessarily able to troubleshoot any problems that arise across diverse technologies as students undertake learning activities.

Practical issues aside, when considering the implications of BYOD on learning, there are both benefits and drawbacks.

Out of mind experience

The extended mind hypothesis suggests that we are using mobile devices as a way of extending our cognitive capabilities by outsourcing some of the mundane work our minds do. Calendars, to do lists, reminders and other tasks can now be managed by our devices.

More interestingly, the capacity to blog, take endless photos and to share our experiences with others means we are using our technology as a memory aid as well.

These advantages build on the capabilities mobile devices provide for connecting and collaborating between students and between students and teachers. In combination, students’ devices allow them to spend less time focussing on less important cognitive tasks and more time in connecting and constructing content knowledge.

The downside to BYOD is that having constant access to social media, YouTube and other sources of entertainment can be tempting distractions for students that detract from the time they could be spending on assigned learning activities. These learning activities must therefore compete for attention with the mass of information, communication and other distracting elements portable devices now give students constant access to.

This is particularly so in the less controllable environment created when students bring their own technology to class. The most scarce and precious resource that the Internet is designed to capture is attention. The very same resource that is required for students to learn effectively.

Keeping focused

Numerous studies have been conducted with the aim of examining this issue. In some cases, students have been surveyed with more than 80% of them reporting that they use their devices for “non-class purposes” when they are in class.

Surveys of teachers too have found that over 70% believe that students’ devices are having a detrimental effect on their attention span in class.

The overall trends associated with increased use of personal technology in educational settings paint a worrying picture. Ina large study including over 1800 students, a negative correlation was found between students who often attempted to multitask, using their devices for non-class related activities, and their overall academic performance.

A further study found that the effect of this distraction also spreads to nearby peers.

Only the beginning

Ultimately having access to portable devices in educational settings seems to influence attention and memory in ways that we are only beginning to understand. But there is still much we don’t know around BYOD’s effects, particularly when it comes to learning.

But we can’t only think of devices in the classroom as a diversion – they can have benefits as learning tools. And as mobile devices become more and more part of every day life, educators need to design learning activities with BYOD in mind.

http://theconversation.com/driven-to-distraction-bringing-your-own-device-to-school-could-hinder-learning-18239

Is Your Teen Addicted To A Smart Phone?

Is Your Teen Addicted To A Smart Phone?

Submitted by Stephanie Andre on October 31, 2013 – 12:45

These days, it’s hard to find a teen who doesn’t live on a cellphone. From texting and social media to the web and apps, it is, arguably, a teen’s most valuable item. 

But have teens become too reliant on their gadgets? The numbers seem to indicate the answer may be ‘yes.’

Stats Don’t Lie
In fact, according to a 2011 Pew Internet & American Life Project study, 63% of teens use texting for communication every day. That’s up 9% from 2009. Even more recently, a UK study says the teen texting average jumped to 75% in 2012.

What’s more, the daily average of number of texts is constantly increasing. In 2009, the average number of texts per day was 50, yet in 2011 it is up to 60. Girls text more than boys, and the average number of daily texts is 100, while it’s 50 for boys.

The study divided participants into three groups: light message users (sending and receiving from 0 to 20 texts per day), medium message users (21 to 100 texts per day) and heavy message users (more than 100 messages per day). The heavy message users group also showed more tendencies to spend longer time talking over cellphones. This group also uses various social networks more than the other two groups.

Additionally, teens who text more than 20 messages a day are more likely to own a smartphone. Some 39% of all teen participants spend a significant amount of time talking over cellphones every day. Only 19% of teens use landlines to make or take a call. Nearly one-third of all participants said they never use landlines to talk to someone.

But Is It Really ‘Addiction?’
Maybe not, according to a 2012 study by Paul Atchley and Amelia Warden at the University of Kansas.

Atchley and Warden used behavioral decision-making techniques with about 100 university students to come up with the findings. They assessed if students were willing to wait to text to gain a monetary reward—can you delay responding to a text message?

We all know people who feel a compulsion to respond immediately to incoming text messages, no matter what else they are doing at the time. They asked college students to imagine receiving a text with a request to “text me when you can.” The students then evaluated options to text back immediately with a small monetary reward or wait to text with a larger monetary reward. Most students wanted to text now and pass on the extra money that would come with waiting. Texting immediately was more important than extra money.

“What we found is, people are willing to wait, but they aren’t willing to wait that long,” says Atchley. “I think this is because responding to a text doesn’t make sense if too much time goes by. If you asked me a question and it takes me a day to get the answer to you, there’s probably no purpose to me responding at that point. So, young adults feel like they need to respond quickly for it to be relevant.”

However, the UK study, sponsored by SecurEnvoy, yields different results. It surveyed 1,000 people and found that two-thirds of respondents feared losing or being without their phones, a condition known as nomophobia—an abbreviation of “no-mobile-phonephobia.”

Symptoms include:
» Experiencing anxiety or panic over losing your phone

» Obsessively checking for missed calls, emails and texts

» Using your phone in inappropriate places, such as the bathroom or church

» Missing out on opportunities for faceto-face interactions

While the two-thirds number of adults is quite significant, even more concerning is that the number increases to 77% for young people ages 18-24.

Emotional Ties
Some recent studies suggest there’s an emotional connection that makes people gravitate to their phones.

According to recent surveys by Shari Walsh and colleagues, who studied the attitudes of teens and young adults, many individuals consider their phones to be part of their self concept. Identifying your cellphone as part of your self predicts not simply how frequently people use their phones, but also their involvement with their phones. Cellphone involvement included measures such as keeping your phone nearby, thinking frequently about your phone, interrupting activities to respond to your phone, feeling distressed without your phone and being unable to reduce phone use.

Parental Responsibility
So, where are the parents in all of this? It seems as though most just accept this behavior as a rite of passage for their teenagers without realizing a real danger. That said, there are things parents can do:

Set a good example. Are you always on your phone? Are you driving and talking? Or, even worse, texting?

Ask the right questions and pay attention. Do you notice that they cannot break away from their phone? Check how many texts they’re actually sending every week, every month.

Establish cellphone-free times. Start things such as, no cellphones at the dinner table or no cellphone use after 9 p.m.

Know the signs of addiction. Understand that they may actually have some sort of dependence on their phone.

Spend time teaching your children etiquette. Start when they’re young, before they ever get a phone. Teaching proper manners now extends beyond “please” and “thank you.” Constantly staring at a phone in certain situations is just plain rude.

Cellphones, like anything else, are fine in moderation and with awareness. Don’t let your teen become a cellphone zombie. Talk to him or her. Like anything else in life, they may think they know everything, but you know better.

- See more at: http://thesafetyreport.com/2013/10/is-your-teen-addicted-to-a-smart-phone/#sthash.JJnMlgXw.dpuf

Cell Phone Radiation Varies By Wireless Carrier

Cell Phone Radiation Varies By Wireless Carrier

Contact: 

Alex Formuzis

(202) 667-6982

alex@ewg.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2013

Washington, D.C. – In recent years, a series of studies have shown that a consumer’s choice of wireless carrier may be more important than the cell phone itself in determining how much radiation will reach the user, according to a new analysis by researchers at the Environmental Working Group.

 These studies indicate that users of similar mobile devices can be exposed to starkly different intensities of radiofrequency emissions, depending on which network technology their carriers use to transmit signals.

 “For the many people who want to avoid excessive cell phone radiation, the choice of wireless network is key,” said Renee Sharp, director of research for EWG. “Yet they don’t have enough information to make that decision, because neither the Federal Communications Commission nor the wireless industry makes public critical information about wireless systems’ radiation levels in real-world conditions.”

 One important industry-funded study, published in 2010 but based on data collected in 2005 and 2006, showed that AT&T and T-Mobile 2G (second generation) networks that used GSM and TDMA technologies exposed cell phone users to 30 to 300 times more radiation than Verizon and Sprint networks with a technology called CDMA.

 The 2005 and 2006 data don’t necessarily mean that AT&T and T-Mobile networks still emit more cell phone radiation than their competitors.  Wireless network technology has cycled through several major evolutions since that time.  Other studies have shown that when carriers switched from 2G to 3G (third generation) network transmission technologies, phones operating on 3G networks used less power much of the time, and their users experienced lower radiation exposures.

 More recently, cell phone carriers have been moving away from 3G and towards what they called LTE, or “long-term evolution” technologies. Some experts in mobile device engineering have produced evidence that indicates that LTE systems can expose users to more cell phone radiation than the 3G systems. Last year, for instance, a team from the Beijing University School of Electronic Engineering reported that fourth generation LTE antenna designs produced average emission rates two to 60 times greater than 2G and 3G designs.

 So what wireless network should consumers choose if they want to lower their exposure to cell phone radiation? The FCC has remained silent about the research findings and does not require the wireless industry to make public useful information on the issue.

 The EWG report says that “a growing body of scientific research suggests that network technology plays a major role in determining the level of radiation to which a mobile device user may be exposed. Yet people cannot find out how much radiation will emanate from particular cell phones on particular networks. That information is known only to the cell phone industry.”  

At the urging of the Government Accountability Office, Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the FCC is reviewing its cell phone radiation standards. These were set in 1996, when cell phones were heavy, expensive and rarely entrusted to kids.

 “Today, many of the most frequent cell phone users are teenagers and children,” Sharp said. “They are more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults because their skulls are thinner.  Moreover, they will be exposed to these emissions over many more decades than their parents.  Nobody knows the long-term consequences of daily exposure to these emissions.”

EWG is pressing the FCC for relevant real-world data on how much radiation different wireless devices emit under various circumstances, and from from various networks.

http://www.ewg.org/release/cell-phone-radiation-varies-wireless-carrier

It's business that really rules us now

It's business that really rules us now

Lobbying is the least of it: corporate interests have captured the entire democratic process. No wonder so many have given up on politics

• 
• • George Monbiot
  • The Guardian, Monday 11 November 2013 15.31 EST
  • Jump to comments (1244)

‘Tony Blair and Gordon Brown purged the party of any residue of opposition to corporations and the people who run them. That's what New Labour was all about.' Photograph: Sean Dempsey/PA

It's the reason for the collapse of democratic choice. It's the source of our growing disillusionment with politics. It's the great unmentionable. Corporate power. The media will scarcely whisper its name. It is howlingly absent from parliamentary debates. Until we name it and confront it, politics is a waste of time.

The political role of business corporations is generally interpreted as that of lobbyists, seeking to influence government policy. In reality they belong on the inside. They are part of the nexus of power that creates policy. They face no significant resistance, from either government or opposition, as their interests have now been woven into the fabric of all three main political parties in Britain.

Most of the scandals that leave people in despair about politics arise from this source. On Monday, for instance, the Guardian revealed thatthe government's subsidy system for gas-burning power stations is being designed by an executive from the Dublin-based company ESB International, who has been seconded into the Department of Energy. What does ESB do? Oh, it builds gas-burning power stations.

On the same day we learned that a government minister, Nick Boles, has privately assured the gambling company Ladbrokes that it needn't worry about attempts by local authorities to stop the spread of betting shops. His new law will prevent councils from taking action.

Last week we discovered that G4S's contract to run immigration removal centres will be expanded, even though all further business with the state was supposed to be frozen while allegations of fraud were investigated.

Every week we learn that systemic failures on the part of government contractors are no barrier to obtaining further work, that the promise of efficiency, improvements and value for money delivered by outsourcing and privatisation have failed to materialise.

The monitoring which was meant to keep these companies honest is haphazard, the penalties almost nonexistent, the rewards can be stupendous, dizzying, corrupting. Yet none of this deters the government. Since 2008, the outsourcing of public services has doubled, to £20bn. It is due to rise to £100bn by 2015.

This policy becomes explicable only when you recognise where power really lies. The role of the self-hating state is to deliver itself to big business. In doing so it creates a tollbooth economy: a system of corporate turnpikes, operated by companies with effective monopolies.

It's hardly surprising that the lobbying bill – now stalled by the House of Lords – offered almost no checks on the power of corporate lobbyists, while hog-tying the charities who criticise them. But it's not just that ministers are not discouraged from hobnobbing with corporate executives: they are now obliged to do so.

Thanks to an initiative by Lord Green, large companies have ministerial "buddies", who have to meet them when the companies request it. There were 698 of these meetings during the first 18 months of the scheme, called by corporations these ministers are supposed be regulating. Lord Green, by the way, is currently a government trade minister. Before that he was chairman of HSBC, presiding over the bank while it laundered vast amounts of money stashed by Mexican drugs barons. Ministers, lobbyists – can you tell them apart?

That the words corporate power seldom feature in the corporate press is not altogether surprising. It's more disturbing to see those parts of the media that are not owned by Rupert Murdoch or Lord Rothermere acting as if they are.

For example, for five days every week the BBC's Today programmestarts with a business report in which only insiders are interviewed. They are treated with a deference otherwise reserved for God on Thought for the Day. There's even a slot called Friday Boss, in which the programme's usual rules of engagement are set aside and its reporters grovel before the corporate idol. Imagine the outcry if Today had a segment called Friday Trade Unionist or Friday Corporate Critic.

This, in my view, is a much graver breach of BBC guidelines than giving unchallenged airtime to one political party but not others, as the bosses are the people who possess real power – those, in other words, whom the BBC has the greatest duty to accost. Research conducted by the Cardiff school of journalism shows business representatives now receive 11% of airtime on the BBC's 6 o'clock news (this has risen from 7% in 2007), while trade unionists receive 0.6% (which has fallen from 1.4%). Balance? Impartiality? The BBC puts a match to its principles every day.

And where, beyond the Green party, Plaid Cymru, a few ageing Labour backbenchers, is the political resistance? After the article I wrote last week, about the grave threat the transatlantic trade and investment partnership presents to parliamentary sovereignty and democratic choice, several correspondents asked me what response there has been from the Labour party. It's easy to answer: nothing.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown purged the party of any residue of opposition to corporations and the people who run them. That's what New Labour was all about. Now opposition MPs stare mutely as their powers are given away to a system of offshore arbitration panels run by corporate lawyers.

Since Blair, parliament operates much as Congress in the United States does: the lefthand glove puppet argues with the righthand glove puppet, but neither side will turn around to face the corporate capital that controls almost all our politics. This is why the assertion that parliamentary democracy has been reduced to a self-important farce has resonated so widely over the past fortnight.

So I don't blame people for giving up on politics. I haven't given up yet, but I find it ever harder to explain why. When a state-corporate nexus of power has bypassed democracy and made a mockery of the voting process, when an unreformed political funding system ensures that parties can be bought and sold, when politicians of the three main parties stand and watch as public services are divvied up by a grubby cabal of privateers, what is left of this system that inspires us to participate?

Twitter: @georgemonbiot A fully referenced version of this article can be found at monbiot.com

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/business-rules-lobbying-corporate-interests

Wi-Fi Kills Plants, Could Harm Kids—But Can Be Harnessed for Energy

Wi-Fi Kills Plants, Could Harm Kids—But Can Be Harnessed for Energy

By Marieke Vos, Epoch Times | November 11, 2013

Wi-Fi can now be harnessed and converted into energy; the health effects of the ubiquitous signals are still a cause for concern among many. 

A high school project threw oil on the burning international debate about the adverse health and environmental effects of Wi-Fi radiation.

After 12 days of Wi-Fi radiation from two routers, garden cress seeds turned out stunted, dead, or mutated (showing genetic defects not present before the trial). By contrast, a control group of 200 seeds with the same conditions but no Wi-Fi radiation flourished. The study was conducted by students at Hjallerup high school in Denmark and made headlines in May.

Cress on left was exposed to Wi-Fi radiation from two routers. Cress on right was not exposed to Wi-Fi. (Courtesy of Kim Horsevad, Hjallerup)

As the experiment was conducted by high school students and not professional scientists, it cannot be considered scientific proof, noted Hjallerup biology teacher Kim Horsevad in an email to the Epoch Times.

Horsevad said, “The results do, however, demonstrate a great deal of internal consistency.” He also said, “The pupils have, to the fullest extent possible with the resources available at this educational level, designed the experiment to study only one variable.”

A top European expert on the subject, neuroscience professor Olle Johanssen at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, will likely soon repeat the experiment, Horsevad said. 

In 2009, Austrian Health insurance company AUVA released a study linking Wi-Fi to adverse health effects, including cancer, reduced fertility, decreased ability to concentrate, and disturbed sleep. AUVA showed radiation levels well below the standard limits could impact the central nervous system, immune system, and protein synthesis.

The effects mostly occur in metabolically active cells (growing cells), which means children are at a higher risk.

(Shutterstock)

The body uses electromagnetic signals to communicate between cells, organs and tissues. The radiation overlaps and interferes with the body’s internal communication, hence the havoc.

Many schools worldwide have adopted anti-Wi-Fi policies, and many countries—France, Canada, and India, for example—and have adopted anti-Wi-Fi measures and laws. The European Union passed an anti-WIFI resolution in May 2011.

WiFi was not tested before its release in 1997, because it uses an unlicensed part of the radio spectrum. Back then, radiation safety regulations focused only on thermal radiation effects, according to electromagnetic-pollution.com. So Wi-Fi was deemed safe since it did not exceeded radiation levels that result in thermal heating.

In the United States, the highest level of radiation allowed for cellular phones is 1.6 watts per kilogram. The AUVA report showed, however, that damage can occur at a level of 0.1 watts per kilogram.

If you want to limit your child’s exposure to Wi-Fi, you can use the WIFI auto turn off app (Apple users only), or switch off Wi-Fi altogether.

Harvesting Wi-Fi for Energy

Wi-Fi energy harvester. (Courtesy of Duke University)

On Nov. 7, Duke University released its five-cell meta-material array, a device that collects Wi-Fi radiation and converts it into electricity.

It works sort of like a solar cell and can be used to recharge cell phone batteries or other small electronic devices. The array is built from inexpensive materials—fiberglass and copper energy conductors on a circuit board. It can also be used to harness energy from satellite signals and sound signals.

The ability to harness these waves could be built into cell phones to help them charge wirelessly; it could be built into the ceiling of a room to capture Wi-Fi waves and convert them into energy.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/356334-wi-fi-kills-plants-could-harm-kids-but-can-be-harnessed-for-energy/