Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Debate: Cell phone health hazards
Debate: Cell phone health hazards
| Jul 15, 2015 - 5:00 PM | 41
A group concerned about cell phone radiation has praised a recent House of Commons Committee report that concluded potential exposure radio frequency fields poses a serious public health issue. But a growing body of scientific evidence has not found a conclusive link between cell phone radiation and adverse health effects like brain cancer. File photo.
| Jul 15, 2015 - 5:00 PM | 41
A group concerned about cell phone radiation has praised a recent House of Commons Committee report that concluded potential exposure radio frequency fields poses a serious public health issue. But a growing body of scientific evidence has not found a conclusive link between cell phone radiation and adverse health effects like brain cancer. File photo.
'Radio frequency fields are serious issue' - Report
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health released a report in June that recommended a precautionary approach when dealing with the electromagnetic radiation cell phones produce, and recommended, among other things, that Health Canada conduct a comprehensive review of all existing literature relating to radiofrequency fields and carcinogenicity based on international best practices.
The report also recommended that the Government of Canada and manufacturers consider policy measures regarding the marketing of radiation emitting devices to children under the age of 14, in order to ensure they are aware of the health risks and how they can be avoided.
“There are known proven biological health effects (from cell phone radiation),” said Wendy Perkins, a spokesperson for Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST),an organization that has raised concerns around electromagnetic radiation.
“However the definition of health effects, and how those parameters are set, is a matter for discussion.”
While C4ST has praised the House of Commons Committee report, others have been critical of its credibility.
“The report is highly skewed based on this testimony from a kangaroo audience,” said Lorne Trottier, an electrical engineer, and founder of a Montreal-based company called Matrox, that produces specialized video cards for commercial and industrial applications.
Trottier has spent much of his free time fighting what he calls “bunk science”, that has raised health concerns around cell phone use.
“It's pretty unanimous that there's no evidence of harm from cell phones or any other form of radio waves,” he said.
Cell phones, and other household electronic devices like microwaves, emit low frequency non-ionizing radiation.
Non-ionizing radiation emits only sufficient energy to vibrate, or heat, atoms, but not enough to remove electrons.
“It's only the most energetic forms of radiation – those that are in the ultraviolet band and the higher frequencies – that are harmful,” Trottier said.
“The others don't have any known health effects.”
Forms of more energetic ionizing radiation include X-rays and gamma rays.
Trottier added that the most compelling evidence cell phone radiation does not cause cancer is that the incidence of brain cancer has not increased in the past 20 years, while cell phone use has grown exponentially.
“If it were true that cell phone radiation was causing DNA damage, you would think that after 20 years where practically everybody is using a cell phone, that there would be some change in the statistics.,” he said. “There has been absolutely none.”
The United States' National Cancer Institute has concluded, “there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk.”
The largest study done so far the potential health risks of cell phone radiation, called the Interphone Study, was conducted by a consortium of researchers from 13 countries.
Most of its published papers concluded there were no statistically significant increases in brain or central nervous system cancers related to higher amounts of cell phone use.
But the study found indications of an increased risk of the brain cancer glioma for the 10 per cent of respondents who reported using cell phones the most, although there was no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use. The researchers concluded they could not establish a causal link between increased cell phone use and brain cancer due to the study's biases and errors.
Because the Interphone Study relied on people's recollections of their cell phone use, it was prone to recall bias, where participants might misremember exact details about their past behaviour.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a component of the World Health Organization, has classified radiofrequency fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” which is a category used when a causal association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.
Caffeic acide, which is found in small amounts in coffee; and coconut oil diethanolamine, a foaming agent used in many bath products, are also among the agents that are “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
For its part, Health Canada does not consider that any precautionary measures are needed regarding daily exposures to electromagnetic fields.
“There is no conclusive evidence of any harm caused by exposures at levels found in Canadian homes and schools, including those located just outside the boundaries of power line corridors,” the organization has said.
Cellphone Ordinance Puts Berkeley at Forefront of Radiation Debate
Cellphone Ordinance Puts Berkeley at Forefront of Radiation Debate
By CAROL POGASHJULY 21, 2015
Photo
BERKELEY, Calif. — Leave it to Berkeley: This city,
which has led the nation in passing all manner of laws favored by the left, has
done it again. This time, the city passed a measure — not actually backed by
science — requiring cellphone stores to warn customers that the products could
be hazardous to their health, presumably by emitting dangerous levels of cancer-causing
radiation.
Under the so-called Right to Know ordinance, passed
unanimously in May by the Berkeley City Council, retailers are supposed to
notify customers, starting in August, that “you may exceed the federal
guidelines for exposure” to radio frequency radiation by carrying a cellphone
in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra. “The potential risk,” the
warning continues, “is greater for children.”
Even supporters of the ordinance acknowledge that
there is no definitive scientific link between cellphones and cancer,
although they argue that it may take years for cancers to develop. The American
Cancer Society says that cases of people developing cancer after carrying
cellphones may
be coincidental or anecdotal. But some supporters are undeterred, noting
that there are similar warnings in the fine print of cellphone manuals, and
that the Berkeley warning is carefully written to reflect that language, albeit
with additional cautionary words.
Photo
“We want to raise awareness,” said Ellie Marks, the
founder of the California Brain
Tumor Association. Ms. Marks does not live in Berkeley but brought her
case here because, she said, “Berkeley has a reputation for taking progressive
action.” She said she was convinced that her husband, Alan, a real estate
agent, contracted brain cancer at age 56 from often having a cellphone pressed
to his ear.
Not surprisingly, the cellphone industry is not
allowing such insinuations to go unchallenged. A few weeks after the law
passed, CTIA-The Wireless Association,
a trade group, filed a First Amendment lawsuit against Berkeley, charging that
retailers cannot be forced to say something that is “false.” A hearing is set
for Aug. 6 in federal court in San Francisco, and the ordinance will not go
into effect until the matter is settled.
Theodore B. Olson, a lawyer with the firm of Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher who was solicitor general under President George W.
Bush, represents CTIA (formerly known as the Cellular Telephone Industries
Association) and said in an email that the Berkeley ordinance was “alarmist”
and “violates the most fundamental principles of the First Amendment.”
In its lawsuit, the trade group said there was no
safety concern “no matter how the phone is worn.”
Many doctors and scientists tend to agree. “X-rays,
which emit ionizing radiation, are known to cause adverse biological effects at
high doses, including cancer,” said Jerrold T. Bushberg, a medical physicist
and a professor of radiology and radiation oncology at the University of
California, Davis. Cellphones, which emit non-ionizing radiation, do not, he
said.
Advertisement
Speaking for himself and as a representative of the
American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Dr. Bushberg said possible
connections between cellphones and cancer have been studied exhaustively.
“We’ve been looking for signs of adverse effects at
low levels for over 50 years without success,” he said. “We can’t say it’s
impossible, but if there is a risk it would be very, very low, or we would have
seen an increase in brain cancers.”
If cellphones were carcinogenic, Dr. Bushberg said,
researchers would have seen an increase in brain “We can’t say it’s
impossible, but if there is a risk it would be very, very low, or we would have
seen an increase in brain cancers.”
If cellphones were carcinogenic, Dr. Bushberg said, researchers
would have seen an increase in brain cancer in Scandinavian countries, where
they have been used longer and where, because of socialized medicine, excellent
cancer registries exist. That has not happened, he said.
Photo
At the heart of the debate is “simply one word:
radiation,” said Robert Cahn, a senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory. “Just because cellphones emit radiation doesn’t make them
dangerous.”
Other devices that emit low-energy radio frequency
radiation and that have not proved harmful include baby monitors, garage door
openers, wireless routers and smart meters.
Nevertheless, Berkeley has a habit of passing
first-in-the-nation laws that seem radical but are promptly copied by other
municipalities including creating smoking bans, a sanctuary for immigrants in
the country illegally, a Styrofoam ban and health benefits for domestic
partners. So if Berkeley succeeds in its fight to warn people about cellphones,
can Cambridge, Mass., and other cities be far behind?
“If you can get it passed in Berkeley, you have a
beginning,” said Susan Wengraf, a City Council member. “If you can’t, forget
it, or come back three years later.”
On the streets of Berkeley, reviews for the ordinance
were mixed. “Labeling things that have a potential threat is always good,” said
Benjamin Fahrer, a farmer who said he creates “urban agriculture on rooftops.”
He likened the new law to notifying the public on secondhand smoke and genetically
modified foods.
Bill Doran, an engineer from Pasadena who had his
cellphone out while in line for ice cream, said, “I’m a little skeptical about
cellphones causing harm.” He was more concerned “that I’m not able to get
reception here.”
At a phone store here, Calico Rose said the law would
not change the way she carried her phone. She demonstrated by tucking her
cellphone in her wallet, which she pressed into her bra. “It would probably
take substantial use to cause cancer,” she said.
Nevertheless, a Berkeley City Council member who
helped write the legislation, Max Anderson, said he had appealed to his
colleagues in May to pass the ordinance on ethical grounds. “Even if the
science isn’t firm, if there’s a risk, we should proceed with caution,” he
said.
Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School,
and Robert Post, the dean of Yale Law School and an expert on the First
Amendment, have agreed to defend Berkeley pro bono over claims that the
legislation is unconstitutional. “The First Amendment is being contorted to all
sorts of wrong ends,” Mr. Lessig said.
“We’re not intending to challenge the science of
cellphones,” Mr. Lessig said. “We’re just making people aware of existing
regulations.”
AB 57 Analysis
I had sent this out a few weeks ago- and just saw this link on the CA site:
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-
LOOKING AT THIS FURTHER- the WORLD INSTITUTE ON DISABILITY SUPPORTED THIS INSANITY. LOOKING AT THEIR WEBSITE- THEY HAVE WIRELESS COMPANIES ON THE BOARD and are SAYING WIRELESS INTERNET ACCESS IS A "DISABILITY ACCESS ISSUE"
WHAAT?
Deborah Kopald
BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Bill No: |AB 57 |Hearing |7/15/15 | | | |Date: | | |----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------| |Author: |Quirk |Tax Levy: |No | |----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------| |Version: |7/8/15 |Fiscal: |No | ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Favorini-Csorba | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- TELECOMMUNICATIONS: WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Deems approved applications for wireless facilities if local governments do not approve or deny the applications within a specified time period. Background and Existing Law Land Use Regulation. The California Constitution allows a city to "make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws, known as the police power of cities." It is from this fundamental power that local governments derive their authority to regulate land through planning, zoning, and building ordinances, thereby protecting public health, safety and welfare. The Planning and Zoning Law requires every county and city to adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan. Cities' and counties' major land use decisions-including development permitting-must be consistent with their general plans. The Planning and Zoning Law also requires public notice to be given at least 10 days in advance of hearings where most permitting decisions will be made. It also allows residents to appeal permitting decisions and other actions to either a board of appeals or the legislative body of the city or county. Cities and counties may adopt ordinances AB 57 (Quirk) 7/8/15 Page 2 of ? governing the appeals process. Providers of wireless telecommunications services ("carriers") must apply to cities and counties for permits to build structures or other wireless facilities that support wireless telecommunications equipment, like antennae and related devices. Similarly, wireless carriers must seek local approval to place additional telecommunications equipment on structures where that equipment already exists, known as "collocations." Federal Requirements for Local Decisions on Wireless Facilities. Two federal laws, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Spectrum Act, require local governments to act within a "reasonable period of time" on permits for siting wireless facilities. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for administering these laws and implementing this requirement. Accordingly, in 2009 and 2014, the FCC issued two decisions to clarify, among other things, the definition of a period of time that is presumed to be reasonable for various categories of wireless telecommunications facilities. Specifically, the FCC established a so-called "shot clock" by ruling that local governments should generally approve or disapprove applications for projects within: 60 days for a project that is an "eligible facilities request" under Section 1455 of Title 47 of the United States Code. An eligible facilities request is defined by the FCC as a collocation on an existing facility that does not substantially change its physical dimensions. In practice, these types of applications could include locating additional equipment cabinets on a rooftop that already has wireless facilities. 90 days for a project that is a collocation that substantially changes the dimensions of the facility, but do not substantially change its size. For example, this could include a project that increases the height of a tower in a public right of way by more than 10%. 150 days for projects that are new sites for wireless facilities. The FCC also identified remedies in cases where local governments do not act within those periods. For collocations that do not change the physical dimensions, the application is "deemed approved"-the permit is automatically granted if a local government has not acted on the application. However, for all AB 57 (Quirk) 7/8/15 Page 3 of ? other types of applications, the FCC specifically declined to adopt a deemed-approved remedy because the circumstances of wireless facility applications can vary greatly. Instead, the FCC specified that if a local government does not act within the reasonable time period for collocations that change the physical dimensions or for new sites, an applicant may bring an action in federal court within 30 days of the reasonable time period elapsing. The court then determines whether the delay was unreasonable under all circumstances of the case and, if necessary, identifies an appropriate remedy. The FCC decisions also clarified procedures for pausing, or tolling, the shot clock by specifying circumstances when the passage of time counts against the time that a local government has to act on an application and when it does not. Specifically, the decisions provide that: When the application is filed, the clock begins to run. Within the first 30 days, the local government must notify the applicant if the application is incomplete and must reference the specific ordinance or other policy that established the requirement for that information. At that point, the clock will be tolled (stopped) until the information is submitted. Once the applicant submits additional information, the local government has 10 days to review the new information and notify the applicant that the supplemental submission did not provide the specific information requested. At that point, the clock is tolled again until the requested information is submitted. The clock can continue to be tolled if subsequent information provided by the applicant does not address the deficiencies identified within the first 30 days, but not for any newly-identified incomplete information. Once the applicant has submitted all of the requested information in the initial request by the local government, the clock runs until it reaches the deadline for that particular type of wireless facility. The decisions further clarified that the reasonable period of time may be extended if the carrier and the local government agree. In those cases, the 30-day period for the applicant to challenge the local government's action is tolled as well. State Requirements for Local Decisions on Wireless Facilities. AB 57 (Quirk) 7/8/15 Page 4 of ? State law also specifies timelines for approvals of wireless facilities. Specifically, the 1977 Permit Streamlining Act requires public agencies to act fairly and promptly on applications for development permits, including wireless facilities. Public agencies must compile lists of information that applicants must provide and explain the criteria they will use to review permit applications. Public agencies have 30 days to determine whether applications for development projects are complete; failure to act results in an application being "deemed complete." However, local governments may continue to request additional information, potentially extending the time before the shot clock begins running. Once a complete application for a wireless facility has been submitted, the Act requires local officials to act within a specific time period after completing any environmental review documents required under the California Environmental Quality Act. Specifically, local governments must act within (1) 60 days after completing a negative declaration or determining that a project is exempt from review, or (2) 180 days after certifying an environmental impact report (EIR). If the local government fails to approve or disapprove the application in the applicable time period, the application is deemed granted, and the applicant may file suit in state court to order the local government to issue the permit. Interaction between Federal and State Requirements. These state and federal processes run separately, such that the shot clock may run under one law, while not running under the other. For example, under the Permit Streamlining Act, all CEQA work must be completed prior to the start of the shot clock. By contrast, under the FCC decisions, some CEQA work may need to be completed while the clock is running, such as in a case where a local government suggests a new location to a developer. In addition, an application must be complete before the shot clock starts under the Permit Streamlining Act, while under the FCC decisions the shot clock starts when an application is filed. Because of these differences in the way the shot clock runs under state and federal law, federal law is more frequently used by wireless carriers to compel local government action on wireless facilities, even though the remedy is stronger under state law. Some lawmakers want to change the remedy that wireless carriers may invoke when local governments do not act AB 57 (Quirk) 7/8/15 Page 5 of ? on wireless facility applications. Proposed Law Assembly Bill 57 provides that an application for a collocation or new siting of a wireless telecommunications facility shall be deemed approved if all of the following conditions occur: The city or county reviewing the application does not approve or disapprove the application within a reasonable period of time, as defined by the applicable FCC decisions and any updates to those decisions. The applicant has provided any public notice that it is required to provide under applicable laws. The applicant has notified the city or county that the reasonable time period has lapsed and that the application is deemed approved. A local government, within 30 days of receiving the deemed-approved notice, can ask a court to review the applicant's use of the deemed-approved remedy. AB 57 also allows the shot clock to be tolled as described in the FCC decisions and allows the reasonable time period to be extended if both the applicant and the city or county agree. Finally, the bill specifies that it does not apply to eligible facilities requests, as defined under federal law. State Revenue Impact No estimate. Comments 1. Purpose of the bill . Demand for wireless service and the associated bandwidth is rising rapidly. For example, between 2012 and 2013, transmission of wireless data grew by 120%, and more than 1 in 3 California households use only wireless devices. Additional antennae, cell towers, and other wireless facilities must be built to meet those needs. However, wireless carriers face significant challenges and delays while navigating local governments' permitting processes for these facilities. AB 57 is a straightforward solution to these challenges. By deeming applications approved if local governments fail to approve or deny the application, AB 57 provides certainty about AB 57 (Quirk) 7/8/15 Page 6 of ? timing to wireless carriers that seek to build additional wireless facilities. Local governments retain their ability to deny permits for legitimate reasons and impose aesthetic requirements or other conditions on cell sites. In addition, because local governments can still deny permits, it is in the best interest of carriers to take advantage of AB 57's provision to extend the shot clock by mutual consent in order to work out viable compromises with carriers or complete environmental review under CEQA. AB 57 simply provides important guidelines and appropriate balance to keep the permit process moving. 2. Home rule . The collocation and siting of wireless telecommunications facilities are matters best addressed by local governments. When considering the siting of wireless facilities, local governments must balance competing concerns over wireless service adequacy, health and safety, and aesthetics. In addition, local governments must make decisions on many types of development permit applications within the timelines specified by the Permit Streamlining Act and other state laws-not just wireless sites. AB 57 significantly reduces local governments' flexibility to balance these various considerations by going beyond what federal law requires. Specifically, the FCC declined to adopt a "deemed-approved" remedy such as the one in AB 57 precisely because of these considerations. Moreover, AB 57 does not contain the same protections of local government's land use authority that are included in federal law. The Committee may wish to consider amending AB 57 to codify similar protections in state law. These amendments could include provisions that clearly state that the bill does not prohibit local governments from approving or denying permits, imposing conditions on permits, or regulating the placement of wireless telecommunications facilities on public buildings. 3. For whom the clock tolls . AB 57 is silent on several aspects relating to tolling the shot clock, including whether the shot clock is tolled for: Environmental review pursuant to CEQA; Public notice as required by the state's open meetings laws-as opposed to the notice that the applicants themselves are required to provide; Appeals of decisions on wireless facilities to the legislative bodies of cities and counties. AB 57 (Quirk) 7/8/15 Page 7 of ? However, local governments may not be able to complete those activities before an application is deemed complete under AB 57. As a result, they face the difficult choice of cutting short these important processes, reducing the time that they have to review applications, or denying permits and facing litigation. In order to ensure that there is adequate time for these processes to proceed and for local governments to consider applications, the Committee may wish to consider amending AB 57 to allow the shot clock to be tolled while these processes occur. 4. Burden shifting . Federal law places the burden on carriers to bring suit in federal court if a local government does not act within a reasonable period of time to prove that there was an unreasonable delay. AB 57 would shift that burden to local governments to file suit to prevent a permit from being deemed approved. Thus, legislators are being asked to decide whether the burden of proof and responsibility for seeking a remedy should fall on private industry or public agencies. The Committee may wish to amend AB 57 to specify that in order for an applicant to act on a permit that has been deemed approved, the applicant must file suit to demonstrate that the permit process was unreasonably delayed. Such an amendment would still allow for the use of the deemed-approved remedy by applicants. 5. Charter cities . The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own "municipal affairs." In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws. Because the Constitution doesn't define "municipal affairs," the courts determine whether a topic is a municipal affair or whether it's an issue of statewide concern. AB 57 includes a legislative finding and declaration that a wireless telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact in California and is a matter of statewide concern. Accordingly, the bill's provisions apply to all cities and counties in California, including charter cities and counties, although the bill does not explicitly state it. 6. Incoming! The Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee passed AB 57 by a vote of 8-1 on June 16th, 2015. Assembly Actions AB 57 (Quirk) 7/8/15 Page 8 of ? Assembly Rules Committee: 11-0 Assembly Local Government Committee: 7-0 Assembly Floor: 66-4 Support and Opposition (7/9/15) Support : AT&T; Bay Area Council; California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; California Chamber of Commerce; California Manufacturers & Technology Association; California Wireless Association; CTIA - The Wireless Association; California Chamber of Commerce; Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce; National Emergency Number Association - The 911 Association; Orange County Business Council; PCIA - The Wireless Infrastructure Association; Silicon Valley Leadership Group; Southwest California Legislative Council; Sprint; T-Mobile; TechAmerica; TechNet; Valley Industry and Commerce Association; Verizon; World Institute on Disability. Opposition : American Planning Association - California Chapter; Association of Environmental Professionals; Brentwood Community Council; BVW; California Professional Firefighters; California State Association of Counties; Center to Keep Healthy Families; City and County of San Francisco; City of Berkeley; City of Beverly Hills; City of Burbank; City of Calabasas; City of Camarillo; City of Cerritos; City of Corona; City of Culver City; City of Diamond Bar; City of Fremont; City of Glendale; City of Huntington Beach; City of La Ca�ada Flintridge; City of La Quinta; City of Laguna Beach; City of Lake Forest; City of Los Angeles; City of Norwalk; City of Ontario; City of Oxnard; City of Pico Rivera; City of Piedmont; City of Rancho Cucamonga; City of Roseville; City of San Dimas; City of San Gabriel; City of San Rafael; City of Seaside; City of Thousand Oaks; City of Torrance; City of Vista; City of Walnut Creek; City of Whittier; County of Alameda; County of San Bernardino; County of Imperial; County of Marin; County of Monterey; County of Los Angeles; County of San Diego; County of Stanislaus; County of Ventura; Ecological Options Network; Intersight, LLC; League of California Cities; Los Angeles County Firefighters Local 1014; Marin County Council of Mayors and Council; Marin Telecommunications Agency; Mast Victims; National Association for Children and Safe Technology; North Hollywood Neighborhood Watch; Pacific Palisades Community Council; Palisades AB 57 (Quirk) 7/8/15 Page 9 of ? Preservation Association; Rural County Representatives of California; San Francisco Firefighters, Local 798; Stop Smart Meters!; Town of Fairfax; Town of Hillsborough; Town of Tiburon; Urban Counties Caucus; Windheim EMF Solutions; Wireless Radiation Alert Network; Dr. Cindy Russell; Elizabeth Skolnik; Ellen Marks; Jenny Miller; Larry Parish; Mark Graham; Shelley Masters; Virginia Farver; Virginia Arnold; Kathy Zavada; J. Petzold; Cheriel Jensen; Gerry Gras; Deborah Kopald; Jon Newland; Victoia Hoekstra; Shannon Bishop; Alex Stadtner; Jerry Cady; Sabine Dherbecourt; Kim Johnson; Lousie and Jay Stanphill; Rola Masri. -- END --
Monday, July 20, 2015
Success as Leeds General Infirmary implants first wireless pacemaker
Success as Leeds General Infirmary implants first wireless pacemaker
Cardiologists at the Leeds General Infirmary have celebrated the first commercial use in the UK of a new wireless pacemaker, the Micra, which is 90% smaller than any other used before.
The pacemaker was implanted directly into the heart of 68 year-old patient, Rodney Gamble from Scunthorpe, replacing the temporary device which had been maintaining a regular heartbeat.
The Micra, which is about the same size as a household fuse and made by Medtronic, has only been made possible by advances in battery technology and circuitry, meaning that the much smaller, wire-free device can be used for a period of up to 15 years.
During the procedure, which takes around an hour, the pacemaker is inserted into the patient’s inner thigh and follows the femoral vein to the right ventricle of the heart. The device is moved into the heart and when correctly in position against the wall of the muscle the applicator is removed allowing the pacemaker to hook itself into the heart tissue.
Consultant Cardiologist, Dr Chris Pepper who led the team carrying out the procedure said “I’m really pleased with the way the implant went. The use of the new technology means that we can carry out much less invasive procedure and reduces some of the risks of complications associated with wired pacemakers. The new device offers significant promise for the future in improving life for patients with pacemakers.
“It is great to see how micro technologies have improved healthcare and I look forward to seeing what the future holds for the technology.”
"Our cross-functional teams have been working for years to redefine engineering limits and production capabilities by radically reducing the size of medical devices by more than 90 percent while continuing to innovate upon the existing technology," said Brian Urke, Vice President and General Manager of the Cardiac Rhythm and Heart Failure's Brady business, which is part of the Cardiac and Vascular Group at Medtronic.
DARPA Plotting To Remote Control Fear, Nervous Systems
DARPA Plotting To Remote Control Fear, Nervous Systems
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)