Wednesday, January 14, 2015

TBYP: Forbes: “Study Suggests Wi-Fi Exposure More Dangerous To Kids Than Previously Thought”

Yesterday, Forbes Magazine let the cat out the bag: studies indicate that wireless radiation is way more harmful than we thought, especially for children.

Today, industry damage-control agents appear to have undertaken a “re-education campaign” upon Forbes, to have the article edited.

Read the original article & get the eye-opening facts:
http://www.takebackyourpower.net/news/2015/01/14/forbes-study-suggests-wi-fi-exposure-dangerous-kids-previously-thought/




Forbes: “Study Suggests Wi-Fi Exposure More Dangerous To Kids Than Previously Thought”

By Robert J. Szczerba, Forbes Magazine | see source article
From an analysis of peer-reviewed studies, the authors argue that children and adolescents are at considerable risk from devices that radiate microwaves (and that adults are at a lower, but still significant, risk).
“From an analysis of peer-reviewed studies, the authors argue that children and adolescents are at considerable risk from devices that radiate microwaves (and that adults are at a lower, but still significant, risk).”
Note from TBYP: The original January 13 version of this article is posted below, as an industry damage-control team appears to have undertaken a “re-education campaign” upon Forbes, to have the article edited. The re-educated version of this article can be seen on Forbes’ website, here.
Most parents would be concerned if their children had significant exposure to lead, chloroform, gasoline fumes, or the pesticide DDT.  The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IRIC), part of the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO), classifies these and more than 250 other agents as Class 2B Carcinogens.  Another entry on that same list is radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF).  The main sources of RF/EMF are radios, televisions, microwave ovens, cell phones, and Wi-Fi devices.
Note from TBYP: So-called “smart” utility meters are notably absent from this list, despite these facts:
1) they typically emit radiation pulses of 1,000 to 10,000 times stronger than a cell phone in use, 2) tens of thousands of complaints of functional impairments have been made following meter “upgrade”; and 3) millions have been deployed throughout the USA and internationally without disclosure or homeowners’ consent. Discerning viewers, especially those who have watched Take Back Your Power, will understand the reason behind this omission.
Uh-oh. Not another diatribe about the dangers of our modern communication systems?  Obviously, these devices and the resulting fields are extremely (and increasingly) common in modern society.  Even if we want to, we can’t eliminate our exposure, or our children’s, to RF/EMF.  But, we may need to limit that exposure, when possible.
That was among the conclusions of a report published in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure entitled “Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences.”  From an analysis of peer-reviewed studies, the authors argue that children and adolescents are at considerable risk from devices that radiate microwaves (and that adults are at a lower, but still significant, risk).  The following points were made:
  • Children absorb a greater amount of microwave radiation than adults.
  • Fetuses are even more vulnerable than children.  Therefore pregnant women should avoid exposing their fetus to microwave radiation.
  • Adolescent girls and women should not place cellphones in their bras or in hijabs (headscarf).
  • Cellphone manual warnings make clear an overexposure problem exists.
  • Government warnings have been issued but most of the public are unaware of such warnings.
  • Current exposure limits are inadequate and should be revised.
  • Wireless devices are radio transmitters, not toys.  Selling toys that use them should be monitored more closely, or possibly even banned.
Children and fetuses absorb more microwave radiation, according to the authors, because their bodies are relatively smaller, their skulls are thinner, and their brain tissue is more absorbent.
More generally, the studies cited in the paper found RF/EMF exposure is linked to cancers of the brain and salivary glands, ADHD, low sperm count, and, among girls who keep cell phones in their bra, breast cancer.  They also noted that the average time between exposure to a carcinogen and a resultant tumor is three or more decades.
Hopefully, more longitudinal studies will be done to verify or contradict the findings so far.  In the meantime, are the government’s current regulations adequate?  The exposure levels they warn against haven’t seem to have been updated for more than 19 years.
Note from TBYP: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), now led by senior wireless lobbyist Tom Wheeler, has approved $2B to deploy wireless routers in classrooms, despite growing evidence of harm. As a direct result, a considerable number of children across the nation are already reported to be experiencing negative health effects, cognitive impairments, and increased ADHD symptoms. In Los Angeles, this LAUSD teacher reported children bleeding from the ear and nose since wi-fi was installed in her classroom.  The LAUSD schoolboard has since removed the router.
In a Network World opinion article ominously titled “Is Wi-Fi killing us…slowly?” columnist Mark Gibbs makes the point that “… laws and warnings are all very well but it’s pretty much certain that all restrictions on products that use microwave technology will err on the safe side; that is, the side that’s safe for industry, not the side of what’s safe for society.”  Gibbs then added this ominous closing question, “Will we look back (sadly) in fifty or a hundred years and marvel at how Wi-Fi and cellphones were responsible for the biggest health crisis in human history?”
But, short of that worst-case scenario, the topic certainly merits more scrutiny, and perhaps some common sense limits on what devices our children use, and for how long.
Follow Rob Szczerba on ForbesTwitter (@RJSzczerba)Facebook, and LinkedIn.

New video interviews (in Swedish) about the dangers of WiFi, cell phones and other sources of artificial electromagnetic fields

New video interviews (in Swedish) about the dangers of WiFi, cell phones and other sources of artificial electromagnetic fields


Dear All on my mailing list,

Please, find enclosed a long and a short version of a recent interview (in Swedish) about the dangers of WiFi, cell phones and other sources of artificial electromagnetic fields. (I have strongly urged the team behind these two videos to make an investigative documentary in English, and - when given the proper economic means - I do hope they will. Their work is excellent and highly skilled!)


Please, share widely!

With my very best regards
Yours sincerely
Olle

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

Open letter to European Economic and Social Committee TEN Section on electrosensitivity

Open letter to European Economic and Social Committee TEN Section on electrosensitivity


From Eileen O’Connor, Director, EM Radiation Research Trust

Open letter – please distribute widely.

For the attention of UK and Ireland members representing the European Economic and Social Committee TEN Section on electrosensitivity,

I am contacting you after receiving a copy of the opinion on Electormanetic hypersensitivity (EHS) report recently adopted by the EESC’s TEN section: https://toad.eesc.europa.eu/ViewDoc.aspx?doc=ces%5cten%5cten559%5cES%5cEESC-2014-05117-00-00-AS-TRA_ES.doc&docid=3045930

The reports main purpose is to protect people suffering with electrosensitivity and your important work will hopefully lead towards suggesting binding EU legislation on EMF. I am grateful to all members for allocating almost five hours towards this important debate on 7th January, 2015 and appreciate the voting has been close in the final text along in the voting on each of the amendments. I understand that the next plenary session is due to take place on 21st January, 2015 to finalize the report and therefore call on all members to review the evidence and information contained within this letter.

SNIP

Read the post here.

RFs from satellite dishes

RFs from satellite dishes


Andre,
 
I solved the puzzle of the internet dishes last night. The power density of a dish has to be the actual power divided by the area of the beam. That's 2.8 watts divided by pi R squared. Not a big number. That means the ERP (Effective Radiated Power) near the dish can't be a big number either. That's reassuring.
 
The published ERP of a dish seems to be the ERP at the satellite, not the ERP here on earth. I did the trigonometry and calculated that the radius of the beam at the satellite would be about 1 km if it has an ERP of 100kW. 
 
Arthur

Cell Phone Radiation Cancer Risk? What is the American Cancer Society’s Position?

Cell Phone Radiation Cancer Risk? What is the American Cancer Society’s Position?


The American Cancer Society (ACS) recently revised a 58-page document entitled, “Brain and Spinal Cord Tumors in Adults” and updated its website page on “Cellular Phones.”

Brain and Spinal Cord Tumors in Adults

“Brain and Spinal Cord Tumors in Adults” dismisses the potential cancer risk from using cell phones and refers readers to the ACS web site for further information ...


Cellular Phones

The ACS web site reviews the research on cell phone radiation and downplays the cancer risk from long-term exposure to cell phone and cordless phone radiation.

Although the ACS seems skeptical there is any cancer risk from cell phone use, they recommend "several things that people who are concerned about RF [radio frequency] waves can do to limit their exposure" ...


Since virtually everyone in the U.S. uses a cell phone and all are exposed to cell phone radiation, one might wonder what the ACS has done to ensure that there is adequate funding for strong research on the cancer risk. Has the ACS devoted any research funding to the study of this environmental risk? Has the ACS used its influence to ensure that Federal agencies prioritize health and safety research regarding this risk?


The complete post is available on the Electromagnetic Radiation Safety web site at http://bit.ly/ACScellphonecancer.

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

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Magog waits to find out if it can ban Hydro's smart meters

Magog waits to find out if it can ban Hydro's smart meters

PHOTO MONTREAL.CTVNEWS.CA
Time is quickly running out for Quebecers who want to opt out of Hydro's smart meter program at a reduced rate.
As of Tuesday, the installation price for a manual meter goes up from 15 to 85 dollars, along with a monthly charge of 5 dollars to read the meter.
The Town of Magog in the Townships meantime, is advising its residents to turn their back on the new technology.
Mayor Vicki May Hamm says the town is seeking legal advice to see if it can ban the devices on its territory.
"We're not convinced that there's not any health problems." says Hamm
Hydro says smart meters are perfectly safe and have already been installed in 2.5 million homes across the province.

Study Suggests Wi-Fi Exposure More Dangerous To Kids Than Previously Thought

Study Suggests Wi-Fi Exposure More Dangerous To Kids Than Previously Thought


From Lloyd Morgan, author of the paper mentioned in the Forbes article
Forbes, January 13, 2015 

Excerpt:

Most parents would be concerned if their children had significant exposure to lead, chloroform, gasoline fumes, or the pesticide DDT. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IRIC), part of the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO), classifies these and more than 250 other agents as Class 2B Carcinogens. Another entry on that same list is radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF). The main sources of RF/EMF are radios, televisions, microwave ovens, cell phones, and Wi-Fi devices.

Uh-oh. Not another diatribe about the dangers of our modern communication systems? Obviously, these devices and the resulting fields are extremely (and increasingly) common in modern society. Even if we want to, we can’t eliminate our exposure, or our children’s, to RF/EMF. But, we may need to limit that exposure, when possible.

That was among the conclusions of a report published in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure entitled “Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences.” From an analysis of peer-reviewed studies, the authors argue that children and adolescents are at considerable risk from devices that radiate microwaves (and that adults are at a lower, but still significant, risk). The following points were made:

SNIP

Read the post here.