Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Rethinking Our ‘Rights’ to Dangerous Behaviors
Rethinking Our ‘Rights’ to Dangerous Behaviors
In the last few years, it’s become increasingly clear that food companies engineer hyperprocessed foods in ways precisely geared to most appeal to our tastes. This technologically advanced engineering is done, of course, with the goal of maximizing profits, regardless of the effects of the resulting foods on consumer health, natural resources, the environment or anything else.
But the issues go way beyond food, as the City University of New York professor Nicholas Freudenberg discusses in his new book, “Lethal but Legal: Corporations, Consumption, and Protecting Public Health.” Freudenberg’s case is that the food industry is but one example of the threat to public health posed by what he calls “the corporate consumption complex,” an alliance of corporations, banks, marketers and others that essentially promote and benefit from unhealthy lifestyles.
It sounds creepy; it is creepy. But it’s also plain to see. Yes, it’s unlikely there’s a cabal that sits down and asks, “How can we kill more kids tomorrow?” But Freudenberg details how six industries — food and beverage, tobacco, alcohol, firearms, pharmaceutical and automotive — use pretty much the same playbook to defend the sales of health-threatening products. This playbook, largely developed by the tobacco industry, disregards human health and poses greater threats to our existence than any communicable disease you can name.
All of these industries work hard to defend our “right” — to smoke, feed our children junk, carry handguns and so on — as matters of choice, freedom and responsibility. Their unified line is that anything that restricts those “rights” is un-American.
Yet each industry, as it (mostly) legally can, designs products that are difficult to resist and sometimes addictive. This may be obvious, if only in retrospect: The food industry has created combinations that most appeal to our brains’ instinctual and learned responses, although we were eating those foods long before we realized that. It may be hidden (and borderline illegal), as when tobacco companies upped the nicotine quotient of tobacco. Sometimes, as Freudenberg points out, the appeals may be subtle: Knowing full well that S.U.V.’s were less safe and more environmentally damaging than standard cars, manufacturers nevertheless marketed them as safer, appealing to our “unconscious ‘reptilian instincts’ for survival and reproduction and to advertise S.U.V.’s as both protection against crime and unsafe drivers and as a means to escape from civilization.”
The problems are clear, but grouping these industries gives us a better way to look at the struggle of consumers, of ordinary people, to regain the upper hand. The issues of auto and gun safety, of drug, alcohol and tobacco addiction, and of hyperconsumption of unhealthy food are not as distinct as we’ve long believed; really, they’re quite similar. For example, the argument for protecting people against marketers of junk food relies in part on the fact that antismoking regulations and seatbelt laws were initially attacked as robbing us of choice; now we know they’re lifesavers.
Thus the most novel and interesting parts of Freudenberg’s book are those that rephrase the discussion of rights and choice, because we need more than seatbelt and antismoking laws, more than a few policies nudging people toward better health. Until now (and, sadly, perhaps well into the future), corporations have been both more nimble and more flush with cash than the public health arms of government. “What we need,” Freudenberg said to me, “is to return to the public sector the right to set health policy and to limit corporations’ freedom to profit at the expense of public health.”
Redefining the argument may help us find strategies that can actually bring about change. The turning point in the tobacco wars was when the question changed from the industry’s — “Do people have the right to smoke?” — to that of public health: “Do people have the right to breathe clean air?” Note that both questions are legitimate, but if you address the first (to which the answer is of course “yes”) without asking the second (to which the answer is of course also “yes”) you miss an opportunity to convert the answer from one that leads to greater industry profits to one that has literally cut smoking rates in half.
Similarly, we need to be asking not “Do junk food companies have the right to market to children?” but “Do children have the right to a healthy diet?” (In Mexico, the second question has been answered positively. Shamefully, we have yet to take that step.) The question is not only, “Do we have a right to bear arms?” but also “Do we have the right to be safe in our streets and schools?” In short, says Freudenberg: “The right to be healthy trumps the right of corporations to promote choices that lead to premature death and preventable illnesses. Protecting public health is a fundamental government responsibility; a decent society should not allow food companies to convince children to buy food that’s bad for them or to encourage a lifetime of unhealthy eating.”
Oddly, these are radical notions. But aren’t they less “un-American” than allowing a company to maximize its return on investment by looking to sell to children or healthy adults in ways that will cause premature mortality? As Freudenberg says, “Shouldn’t science and technology be used to improve human well-being, not to advance business goals that harm health?” Two other questions that can be answered “yes.”
Monday, February 24, 2014
Dutch forum offers advice on reducing wireless exposure
Dutch forum offers advice on reducing wireless exposure
Monday 24 February 2014 | 10:57 CET | News
The Kennisplatform Elektromagnetische velden, a Dutch forum on sharing expertise over electromagnetic fields, has issued a memo with tips on dealing with electromagnetic radiation from wireless equipment. Certified equipment meets the current norms and radiation limits and is considered safe according to the latest scientific research. The memo provides advice for those who want more protection than the current standards and to limit their exposure. The primary recommendation is to increase distance from the radiation source. The Kennisplatform is a cooperation of RIVM, TNO, KEMA, ZonMW, Agentschap Telecom and Antennebureau, GGD Nederland and the Gezondheidsraad.
| Categories: | Mobile & Wireless |
| Companies: | Agentschap Telecom / Antennebureau |
| Countries: | Netherlands |
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Online petition urges government to regulate mobile towers
Online petition urges government to regulate mobile towers
The petition asks for scientific studies on health hazards, policy to regulate mobile tower radiation and relocation of towers from populated areas.
Are you aware of the ill-effects, especially on health, caused by the increasing number of mobile towers and resultant radiation levels in Bengaluru and other cities? Is there any government body to regulate the installation of cell towers? Are citizens allowed to know the actual level of radiation in a given area?
In the backdrop of these questions, Surakshit Vatavaran has recently initiated an e-petition onChange.org to the Prime Minister of India for the establishment of a regulatory body to monitor cell tower installations and radiation levels. You can find their petition here.
Subhashree, Managing Trustee at Surakshit Vatavaran said, “We are looking to collect about 50,000 signatures. We plan to submit this at the PMO by end May-mid June, once the new government has been elected.”
Surakshit Vatavaran is a Bangalore-based NGO that promotes the safe use of technology, by spreading awareness about products and services associated with modern technologies, by means of workshops and seminars. This, they believe, will allow people make informed decisions with respect to living with, and around technology. They seem to be rather aptly named, as Surakshit Vatavaran translates to ‘safe environment’ in Hindi.
No information on public domain
As of now, there is very little information regarding cell phone towers - the amount of radiation emitted by them, their proximity to homes and the like - available in the public domain. This is what the petition seeks to change. Creating a regulatory body will enable citizens to find out the data on cell tower installations in their locality, their compliance to norms, the number of antennae installed in the towers and the power emitted by them.
The International Agency for Research in Cancer has classified ‘Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from wireless phones)’, as a Group 2B carcinogen in May 2011. This classification includes substances, mixtures and exposure circumstances that are ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’. Other items that feature in this classification include DDT, coffee, lead and low frequency magnetic fields, among others.
Can radiation cause cancer?
Several studies have been conducted to prove the relation between radiation from cell phone towers and cancer. One such study conducted in a city in Brazil in June 2013, stated that radiation from cell phone towers was related to over 7000 cancer deaths. In contrast, a recent study called the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) programme in the UK, claims that ‘there are no evidence of risks to health from the radio waves produced by mobile phones or their base stations.’
Though studies have not conclusively proven that cell phone towers cause/do not cause cancer, radiofrequency electromagnetic fields being termed a possible cause of cancer in itself, implies that the long term effects are not known and therefore subsequent research needs to be conducted.
Scientific studies, regulatory body advocated
In the light of all this, Surakshit Vatavaran, asks for the following to be enforced in its petition:
- Creation of a regulatory body to map the details of existing/proposed cell towers, and make information easily accessible to all citizens.
- Scientific studies to determine if there any long term health effects due to cell tower radiation in India.
- Policy framework to avoid unscientific proliferation of towers, especially near thickly populated areas.
- Exploring the possibility of relocating the towers or reducing the power transmitted, where towers are located very close to densely populated areas.
The need for a regulatory body
Balaji Mahalingam, Technology Advisor at Surakshit Vatavaran, said that the establishment of a regulatory body in India was imperative. India has a very high population density, and licenses have been granted to multiple service providers. Sometimes up to ten providers have been granted license for a given service area.
In the absence of an independent regulatory body, many of these towers are operating on self-certification basis and are subject to random checks only, as against regular, periodic checks and certification by an independent regulatory body. He added that there have been cases in Mumbai, where citizens who have wanted to find out radiation levels, have had to pay Rs 4000. Once the enquiry was conducted, if the radiation levels came under the permissible limit, they had to forfeit the money. He also adds that it is the right of every citizen to know the level of radiation around him/her, and the duty of the government to make this information available.
Surakshit Vatavaran in its petition, says that while it is impractical to remove the towers, keeping in mind the indispensability that comes with cell phones, solutions for safe use of technology must be found and therefore the necessity for a regulatory body comes into play.
Balaji also said that it did not make sense protesting or calling for a complete ban on cell phone towers; that would simply be an alarmist approach, one that was unfair without substantial evidence that related cell phone towers to cancer. He added that having a regulatory body would act as a precautionary principle, rather than a preventive principle. He also said that this would enforce the monitoring and publishing of data related to cell phone towers, and in making that information easily available to the public.
It is evident that cell phone towers are here to stay, but there is certainly a case for regulations in terms of their location and levels of radiation.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
National Seminar on Cell Phone/Tower Radiation Hazards and Solutions
National Seminar on Cell Phone/Tower Radiation Hazards and Solutions
http://www.iasst.gov.in/pdf/news/Programme_17022014.pdf
http://www.iasst.gov.in/pdf/news/Programme_17022014.pdf
Wi-Fi Radiation Prevention Tips
Wi-Fi Radiation Prevention Tips
by Dr. Stephen Sinatra
Filed Under: General Health
Last
Reviewed 02/18/2014
As many of you know, I’ve long been concerned
about Wi-Fi radiation
in schools. In fact, I’m part of a Canadian
coalition called Doctors for Safer Schools. That’s an interest that caught my
attention years ago while visiting my son Drew, a naturopath in Canada, who
introduced me to many people whose children developed health issues in schools since Wi-Fi had
been installed. Meanwhile, their symptoms (commonly headaches,
lightheadedness, and palpitations), were alleviated on the weekends and during
school vacations. This is anecdotal evidence so far, but more research is under
way.
Given this background, you can imagine how thrilled
I was to hear that France made a move to strongly discourage their states and
provinces from allowing Wi-Fi radiation in their schools. They're
employing the “precautionary principle," encouraging the use of Ethernet
connections until Wi-Fi is proven safe for human consumption. Meanwhile the
telecom industry is operating with the assumption that with Wi-Fi there’s no
proof of harm. Yet, we have a lot of evidence that Wi-Fi radiation does affect
the human body.
We already know, for example, that Wi-Fi radiation
generated by cell phones penetrates the less protected, and still
developing, brain of a child to
a much greater degree than it does an adult. We also have research that shows
cell phone bases provoke cardiac
arrhythmias. Plus, the studies continue to roll in.
To make matters worse, school Wi-Fi systems are
industrial-strength compared to what we have in our homes: They are so much
stronger! Routers mounted in hallways and other locations can blast that signal
through as much as 18 inches of cinderblock. But the trouble with home routers
is that they’re constantly pulsing to keep the signal, exposing us to Wi-Fi
radiation 24 hours a day—even when we’re sleeping.
Wi-Fi Radiation Safety Tips
• Hardwire
your connection: Use an Ethernet cable for your computer
connection to avoid EMFs, and disable the built-in Wi-Fi once you have an
Ethernet connection. If you’re not able to switch to an Ethernet connection,
use an extension connection on your Wi-Fi network plug-in to keep it at a
better distance from your body.
• Only turn
on your router during periods of actual Internet usage, and
then turn it off. Plus, walk away from your computer when downloading large of
amounts of data on Wi-Fi.
• Turn cell phone Wi-Fi on only when accessing Wi-Fi. Otherwise,
turn it off just as you would when putting it in “airplane mode.”
• Turn
laptops off when charging if the built-in Wi-Fi is on. Plus,
never use a laptop on your lap, and instead place it on a table away from you.
If you are pregnant, shield your baby with a product like Belly Armour.
• Limit the
time you spend in places with Wi-Fi, such as coffee shops.
• Be an
advocate in your neighborhood—educating your school system
about the dangers of Wi-Fi radiation. Plus, make your voice known if mast towers
are going up in your neighborhood. These are huge money-makers for the mast
tower owners, but the money isn’t worth the health risks.
Let’s face it, technology
is here to stay. Wi-Fi radiation has even climbed aboard airplanes and trains,
and there is controversy stirring about the effect it’s having on pilots and
crews. So, practice Sinatra-Safe Wi-Fi to protect yourself and your family as
much as possible—and please share any Wi-Fi safety radiation tips that you
have.
Now it’s your turn: Are
you concerned about your children’s exposure to Wi-Fi?
You May Also Be Interested In
Friday, February 14, 2014
No permission to 4G towers until radiation effects are studied: Mayor
No permission to 4G towers until radiation effects are studied: Mayor
Friday, 14 February 2014 / DNA
The BMC won't allow installation of 4G cell phone towers until a study regarding the effects of radiation emanating from the same on one's health is completed, mayor Sunil Prabhu said. Speaking to the media after a meeting of the group leaders in BMC, Prabhu said the civic body has been instructed to carry out a study by forming a committee of experts in this regard.
"The BMC has received applications seeking permission for installation 4G cell towers. However, we don't know up to what level the towers will emanate radiation. Hence, we have instructed the administration to find out the possible effects of the same on residents' health," he added.
The group leaders took the decision after the issue was mooted for discussion by Samajwadi Party group leader Rais Shaikh referring to a 70-foot-tall 4G tower on a private land in Chembur. BMC chief Sitaram Kunte has served a notice to the private player that has installed the tower, Prabhu said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)