[Interference of vitamin E on the brain tissue damage by electromagnetic radiation of cell phone in pregnant and fetal rats].

Wei Sheng Yan Jiu. 2013 Jul;42(4):642-6.

[Interference of vitamin E on the brain tissue damage by electromagnetic radiation of cell phone in pregnant and fetal rats].

[Article in Chinese]

Gao X, Luo R, Ma B, Wang H, Liu T, Zhang J, Lian Z, Cui X.

Source

Department of Public Health, Shandong University, Ji'nan 250012, ChinaDepartment of Public Health, Shandong University, Ji'nan 250012, China.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the interlerence ot vitamin E on brain tissue damage by electromagnetic radiation of cell phone in pregnant and fetal rats.

METHODS:

40 pregnant rats were randomly divided into five groups (positive control, negative control, low, middle and high dosage of vitamin E groups). The low, middle and high dosage of vitamin E groups were supplemented with 5, 15 and 30 mg/ml vitamin E respectively since the first day of pregnancy. And the negative control group and the positive control group were given peanut oil without vitamin E. All groups except for the negative control group were exposed to 900MHz intensity of cell phone radiation for one hour each time, three times per day for 21 days. After accouchement, the right hippocampus tissue of fetal rats in each group was taken and observed under electron microscope. The vitality of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px), and the content of malondialdehyde (MDA) in pregnant and fetal rats' brain tissue were tested.

RESULTS:

Compared with the negative control group, the chondriosomes in neuron and neuroglia of brain tissues was swelling, mild edema was found around the capillary, chromatin was concentrated and collected, and bubbles were formed in vascular endothelial cells (VEC) in the positive fetal rat control group, whereas the above phenomenon was un-conspicuous in the middle and high dosage of vitamin E groups. We can see uniform chromatin, abundant mitochondrion, rough endoplasmic reticulum and free ribosomes in the high dosage group. The apoptosis has not fond in all groups'sections. In the antioxidase activity analysis, compared with the negative control group, the vitality of SOD and GSH-Px significantly decreased and the content of MDA significantly increased both in the pregnant and fetal rats positive control group (P < 0.05). In fetal rats, the vitality of SOD and GSH-Px significantly increased in the brain tissues of all three different vitamin E dosages groups when compared with the positive control group, and the content of MDA was found significantly decreased in both middle and high dosage of vitamin E groups(P < 0.05). The same results have also been found in high dosage pregnant rat group, but in middle dosage group only SOD activity was found increased with significance (P < 0.05). With the dosage increase of vitamin E, the vitality of SOD and GSH-Px was increasing and the content of MDA was decreasing.

CONCLUSION:

Under the experimental dosage, vitamin E has certain interference on damage of antioxidant capacity and energy metabolization induced by electromagnetic radiation of cell phone in pregnant rats and fetal rats.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24024380

Readers Respond: How Wireless Affects Your Health

Readers Respond: How Wireless Affects Your Health

Responses: 81

By Bradley Mitchell, About.com Guide

From the article: Is Wireless a Health Hazard?

Some people speculate that prolonged exposure to wireless network devices can cause memory loss or other brain damage. A few schools have even banned use of Wi-Fi networking due to health concerns. Scientific studies, however, have been inconclusive. Is it some kind of conspiracy by the wireless industry to keep basic research from being done? Or is there no real problem to be found. One thing is for certain: Many people have strong opinions on both sides. What Do You Think?

Hazardous? Yes

Wifi is everywhere... The same as smoking was permitted everywhere, even in hospitals. It is going to take some heavy research, and a ton of evidence for this current America to give up Wifi... . Convenience has always surpassed safety in this country. Sad, but so true.

—Guest Riffio

Why are only cell phones at issue?

Because wireless cell phone frequency is lower than the land line or cordless phone.

—Guest Arya

Why only cell phones?

It isn't only cell phones - cordless landline phones are indeed hazardous to your health as well.

—Guest Stacy

Research on tinnitus needed

I can’t help but wonder if tinnitus is caused by Wi-Fi or irritated further because of it.

—Guest Anonymous

Wireless and radiation

The wireless devices that we use today, use Em waves to send signals. Our prolonged exposure to these Em waves can result in harming our body. The effects may be nausea, dizziness, headaches etc. But the most feared effect is mutation. Mutagens like radiation can change the genetic code/sequence of the cell DNA which can result in formation of mutant cells which divide at an uncontrollable pace . This can lead to formation of tumor and thus cancer. And the most feared property of tumor cells is metastasis (these mutant, abnormal cells may show up at another site in the body). We can't avoid these EM waves in our world today, but we can limit the exposure of our body to these harmful radiations. These changes are not caused suddenly but due to frequent and prolonged exposure to radiation. Wireless devices emit radiation, and I request everyone to avoid too much use of these devices. Use them when needed.

—Guest Shaun

Noticing there is more dementia

I am 70 years old. When I was younger, I had no problem sleeping soundly. And there were less people with dementia. I have noticed that since the increase in more radio waves being used there is more dementia. Also I have more trouble shutting my mind off for sleeping. I wish I had a lead lined room to stop radio waves and see if that would help. Any studies being done?

—Guest Ron

Nothing like the sun, no worries

The sun puts out more radiation then Wi-Fi can ever dream to put out. Wifi is not radiant energy per se like the sun - you can feel the sun's heat. However, anything that cause inflammation can cause cancer which comes from changes in oncogenes that can be from radiation, genetic or immunologic.

—Guest David

Headaches from tablet

I got a tablet for my birthday and used it mainly to listen to audio books an watch videos. I started to get headaches and decreased thinking ability. I believe this was due to prolonged use of my tablet. I use it a lot less now, mainly to check emails. I feel a lot better with less use. Oh, and on the issue of government making sure the people are not exposed to harmful substances / EM fields / drugs etc. - ha, give me a break. If you use a device or are exposed to something and you feel bad or sick, trust your own judgement not what vested interests or authority figures say.

—Guest Danny

Enjoy it

I have trust in the matter that when is found out that any harm can be caused by Wifi, we will be notified. If people want to have conspiracy theories about wireless companies or whatever, that is fine. I choose to live my life without worrying over every little thing. I enjoy wireless Internet immensely, as I am on the toilet as I write this on a tablet. It makes life easier and more fun, and if it so happens to bite me in the ... years from now, so be it.

—Guest Rabin

Health issues here

I always got a hot spot on the side of my head when I used analog wireless. I had to ask callers to call on my land line if they wanted to chat. I have the iPhone 4 digital now but I am still aware of the signal. I put it on airport as often as possible - turn it on for messages - I spend as little time in town at my apartment - 3 to 4 days max because of the proliferation of Wifi devices. I see 28 Wifis and 7 other devices on my internet connection that are transmitting through my apartment. I spend as much time down the coast as possible and I am thankful my signal is only 1 bar and often not even that. For my health I hope the signal never gets any stronger. My body can feel exposure.

—Guest Mimi

Is there proof of Wifi danger?

Is there a full proof that wifi is dangerous or not? I know of many people who believe that it is dangerous and of many who say it isn't. I have to do a summer project report about wifi - its danger and how to prevent it. But when I searched I found a number of sites saying it isn't. Can anyone please tell me if there is any proof that wifi is dangerous? -star ^_^

—Guest star

Man made chaos and double standards

It is impossible to find no interaction of matter with waves/ radiations. The potency and exposure periods are still to be researched for safe tolerance limits to still recast and prove it. It will very depending on age, health etc. Never forget of impact on animals, birds, plants etc. Therefore, how will you discover the safe limit and for whom will it apply? Are we, independent of nature, other species, agriculture and plants?? This radiation will continue to spread like it is happening for chemical pollution, petro-chemical pollution, fertilizer pollution and never to miss the medicinal and clinical pollution; while simply forgetting about theological and cultural pollution already crossed individual's tolerance limits (to protect the native structures) and it's confinement to some regions! All this man made chaos and double standards, implement to create economic concentrations and for spreading the technology or it's benefits!

—Guest Vivek Gupta

Electromagnetic stress from heavy metals

I developed electrical sensitivty over a period of time and fell quite ill with it. I discovered that my silver / amalgam fillings, which contain mercury and other metals, were causing a lot of ill health and also causing a magnet effect around any electrical sources i.e. using a PC, Wi-Fi, even going into shops etc, where there is fluorescent lighting. I have had my amalgam fillings removed and replaced with white composites, and I am currently going through a detoxification process to remove the metals from my body. This is a very common problem amongst people, especially with highly sensitive individuals like myself.

—Guest LKT

If wireless are harmful... then why?

If wireless are harmful, then why do we use them at hospitals all over the country... even in patient areas.. and also as a guest to keep you entertained? I work at a major hospital and see them all over the place as well other hospitals... and we are one of the biggest hospitals within USA with over 30,000 employees.

—Guest Willie

Wi-Fi is harmful

Wireless is hazardous to our health. I believe all devices that have WiFi can cause cancer due to massive radiation. We use them daily so its very easy to have cancer. The manufacturer does (?) tell the all truth.

—Guest josphat

Read more at

http://compnetworking.about.com/u/ua/wireless/effects-of-wireless-on-health.htm

Will There Be a Backlash Against Technology?

Dr. Jim Taylor

Adjunct faculty, University of San Francisco

Will There Be a Backlash Against Technology?

Posted: 09/09/2013 5:01 pm

In a past post, I described my belief in the Law of Unintended Consequences, which suggests that we can't predict how innovations will impact us individually or collectively. This law couldn't be more relevant than in the influence of the Internet, and all of the technological advances that followed, on our lives.

What makes the Law of Unintended Consequences so powerful in technology is the speed with which it has become the dominant force in the 21st century landscape. Consider that the Internet has been in public existence for less than 20 years. New technology gets woven into the fabric of our lives and our culture so fast that there is no time to stop and consider what impact it might have on our lives, for better or for worse.

It's only after new technology has been introduced are we able to look in our metaphorical rearview mirror and have the opportunity to look critically at the Frankenstein's monster that has been created. But it feels like it's too late to stop the tsunami of technology because we have already been assimilated into the collective or become wired to the matrix (to use two rather dystopian film examples). And there isn't any way to go back. Or is there?

We may have just reached the point when the technological advances have started to become just a bit more incremental rather than ground-breaking, so that we can step back, a deep breath and reflect on what technology hath wrought on our lives.

There seems to be a growing consensus that perhaps technology is not the panacea for all of our ills that it has been trumpeted as and that it may actually be something of a Pandora's Box in our lives. A recent New York Times commentary questions whether our obsession with smartphones has gone too far. A recent video titled, "I Forgot My Phone," that has gone viral illustrates how all of this new technology has led us astray. The dominant reaction that the video evokes is sadness at how misguided we appear when we are forced to look in the mirror at our digitally controlled lives and an incredulity at how much technology has taken away from rather than enhanced our life's experiences.

We've become performers in our own personal reality-TV show rather than participants in our own lives. We are promoting ourselves on social media rather than expressing ourselves in person. We are so busy recording special moments in our lives that we are missing those special moments in our lives. Our children are playing with their parents' (or, even worse, their own) smartphones rather than actually playing. We are getting closer to people far away from us, but farther away from those close to us.

The omnipresence of technology in our lives is taking a toll on us physically, psychologically, and emotionally. It causes us to feel trapped, stressed, and anxious. Being connected all the time and needing to input and output constantly is just plain tiring.

That's no way to do life!

So my question is: Will there be a backlash against technology or is "resistance futile"? I'm going to bet on backlash, though not total rebellion. Not one in which we abandon technology completely and en masse. Technology has too much to offer for us to go totally Luddite. At the same time, I think many people are seeing that excessive use of technology is distancing us from what creates richness and meaning in our lives. They are seeing that they need to disconnect (in the new-school sense) and reconnect (in the old-school sense).

Here's my suggestion to you: Unplug, turn off, and tune in to life. The fact is that, unless you are in possession of the nuclear launch codes (or have some equally urgent job), you don't need to be connected all the time. It just what everyone else has been doing and it has become habit for us. But it's time to break the habit and take back control of technology in our lives rather than being a slave to it. Here are few places where you can draw a digital line in the sand:

• In bed (whatever you're doing there)
• At meals (try talking to people)
• On the toilet (focus, people)
• Reading a book (okay, you can use an e-reader)
• Studying or working (unless you need)
• Socializing (whether family, friends, or dates)
• In nature (that's the point of being out there)
• At sporting events (in which you are participating or spectating)

And here's a simple and practical step in the right direction: disable the pings and vibrations that notify you of incoming emails, text messages, and social media, and decide to check them, say, once every hour.

Here is my promise to you. If you join me in this backlash against technology, good things will happen. After a short period of discomfort (it's called withdrawals), you will feel healthier, calmer, happier, and freer. You will be more present and connected to other people and everything you do than any connection you have through an Ethernet cord or a cellular or WiFi signal. Your relationships will deepen and everyone around you will appreciate you more. You won't miss a thing. You will once again be engaging fully in that thing called life. Now that is the way to do life!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jim-taylor/will-there-be-a-backlash_b_3895934.html

gy, Technology News

Cell Phone Radiation Lawsuit News: Bernstein Liebhard LLP Applauds Groups’ Call for New Cell Phone Radiation Standards

Cell Phone Radiation Lawsuit News: Bernstein Liebhard LLP Applauds Groups’ Call for New Cell Phone Radiation Standards

PRWEB.COM Newswire

 New York, New York (PRWEB) September 07, 2013

Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing consumers in cell phone radiation lawsuits, (http://www.consumerinjurylawyers.com/cell-phone-radiation-lawsuit.html) applauds a new effort by a consortium of health and consumers groups to convince U.S. government regulators to revamp cell phone radiation standards. According to a statement issued on September 3rd, the Environmental Working Group and 11 other public interest organizations have written to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) urging them to update current protocols for wireless devices in order to better protect the health of children; update radiation standards to reflect actual patterns of use; and provide consumers with information about potential radiation exposure from specific phones and networks.*

“A growing body of evidence has linked cell phone radiation exposure to brain tumors and other cancers. Our Firm applauds these organizations for working to bring attention to this serious public health issue,” says Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing the victims of defective drugs, medical devices, and consumer products. The Firm is part of a small consortium of law firms actively representing plaintiffs in cell phone radiation lawsuits. (Case No. 0008533-12, Superior Court, District of Columbia)

Brain Tumors and Cell Phones

According to the statement issued by the Environmental Working Group, the FCC last revised cell phone radiation standards in 1996. Since then, a growing body of research has found evidence of a connection between the development of brain tumors and exposure to cell phone radiation. For example, after the Interphone study found 30 minutes of cell phone use per day was associated with a 40% increased risk for a type of brain tumor called glioma , the World Health Organization’s International Agency on Research for Cancer (IARC) announced it was reclassifying cell phone radiation as possibly carcinogenic.**

The FCC is now conducting a review of its current cell phone radiation emission standards. *** In 2012, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) criticized the Commission’s current standards as being outdated compared to those of international regulatory agencies, and for failing to reflect the most recent research on cell phone radiation.****

Bernstein Liebhard LLP is currently offering free, no obligation cell phone radiation lawsuit evaluations to individuals who may have developed cancerous brain tumors from cell phones. Read More about the possible link between cell phone use and brain tumors at the Firm’s website. For more information, please call 800-511-5092 to speak with an attorney today.

*ewg.org/release/health-consumer-groups-call-new-cell-phone-radiation-standards, Environmental Working Group, September 3, 2013

**iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf, May 2011

***gao.gov/products/GAO-12-771, GAO, July 24, 2013

About Bernstein Liebhard LLP

Bernstein Liebhard LLP is a New York-based law firm exclusively representing injured persons in complex individual and class action lawsuits nationwide since 1993, including those who have been harmed by dangerous drugs, defective medical devices and consumer products. The firm has been named by The National Law Journal to the “Plaintiffs’ Hot List,” recognizing the top plaintiffs’ firms in the country, for the past 10 consecutive years.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP

10 East 40th Street

New York, New York 10016

800-511-5092

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2013 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, 800-511-5092. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

###

Contact Information:

Felecia L. Stern, Esq.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP

info(at)consumerinjurylawyers(dot)com

http://www.consumerinjurylawyers.com

Read the full story at http://www.prweb.com/releases/cell-phone-radiation/cell-phones-brain-tumors/prweb11099701.htm

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1454646#ixzz2eZ3aX7mL

Letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the FCC Regarding Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Standards

05 September 2013

Letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the FCC Regarding Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Standards 

Letter from the President of the American Academy of Pediatrics (comprising 60,000 health professionals) to the Acting Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The letter urges the FCC to adopt radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation standards that protect children and pregnant women; reflect current use standards (The FCC standards were established in 1996 when approximately 44 million people in the United States had mobile phones.  Today, there are more than 300 million mobile phones in use and an individual's number and length of calls per day has greatly increased.);  provide consumer disclosure of RF exposure of individual cell phones.

August 29, 2013

Dear Acting Chairwoman Clyburn and Commissioner Hamburg:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a non-profit professional organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists, and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and young adults appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule “Reassessment of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Limits and Policies” published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2013.

In the past few years, a number of American and international health and scientific bodies have contributed to the debate over cell phone radiation and its possible link to cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the United Nations’ World Health Organization, said in June 2011 that a family of frequencies that includes mobile-phone emissions is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” The National Cancer Institute has stated that although studies have not demonstrated that RF energy from cell phones definitively causes cancer, more research is needed because cell phone technology and cell phone use are changing rapidly. These studies and others clearly demonstrate the need for further research into this area and highlight the importance of reassessing current policy to determine if it is adequately protective of human health.

As radiation standards are reassessed, the AAP urges the FCC to adopt radiation standards that:

 Protect children’s health and well-being. Children are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children. It is essential that any new standard for cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes.

 Reflect current use patterns. The FCC has not assessed the standard for cell phone radiation since 1996. Approximately 44 million people had mobile phones when the standard was set; today, there are more than 300 million mobile phones in use in the United States. While the prevalence of wireless phones and other devices has skyrocketed, the behaviors around cell phone uses have changed as well. The number of mobile phone calls per day, the length of each call, and the amount of time people use mobile phones has increased, while cell phone and wireless technology has undergone substantial changes. Many children, adolescents and young adults, now use cell phones as their only phone line and they begin using wireless phones at much younger ages.

Pregnant women may carry their phones for many hours per day in a pocket that keeps the phone close to their uterus. Children born today will experience a longer period of exposure to radio-frequency fields from cellular phone use than will adults, because they start using cellular phones at earlier ages and will have longer lifetime exposures. FCC regulations should reflect how people are using their phones today.

 Provide meaningful consumer disclosure. The FCC has noted that it does not provide consumers with sufficient information about the RF exposure profile of individual phones to allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. The current metric of RF exposure available to consumers, the Specific Absorption Rate, is not an accurate predictor of actual exposure. AAP is supportive of FCC developing standards that provide consumers with the information they need to make informed choices in selecting mobile phone purchases, and to help parents to better understand any potential risks for their children. To that end, we support the use of metrics that are specific to the exposure children will experience.

The AAP supports the reassessment of radiation standards for cell phones and other wireless products and the adoption of standards that are protective of children and reflect current use patterns. If you have questions, please contact Clara Filice in the AAP’s Washington Office at 202/347-8600.

Sincerely,

Thomas K. McInerny, MD FAAP

President

Letter sent to :

The Honorable Mignon L. Clyburn

Acting Commissioner

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street SW

Washington, DC 20054

The Honorable Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg

Commissioner

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

10903 New Hampshire Avenue

Silver Spring, MD 20993

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941318

http://mieuxprevenir.blogspot.ca/2013/09/letter-from-american-academy-of.html