Thursday, July 30, 2015

Devra Davis, Ph.D talks about safety of wireless tech on children

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cC98MUecfc

Questioning the Safety of Our Children’s Exposure to Wireless
Radiation – An Important Discussion for Parents

Wednesday, June 10th, 2015, Framingham, MA


In this video, Dr. Devra Davis introduces Catherine Steiner-Adair. This is Part 1.

Everyone included in this talk (will be in other videos):

• Dr. Devra Davis, Ph.D – Founder of the Environmental Health Trust and Award-Winning scientist and author of Disconnect--the Truth About Cell Phone Radiation

• Catherine Steiner-Adair – Ed. D, Clinical Psychologist, Consultant, Speaker, and Author of The Big Disconnect: Protecting Childhood and Family Relationships in the Digital Age

• Janet Newton. President of EMR Policy Institute

• Dr. R.S. Sharma, Senior Deputy Director General & Scientist – G, Indian Council of Medical Research. A leader of the Indian federal government research on the public health and environmental
impacts of mobile phones and other wireless devices

• Frank Clegg, CEO of Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST) and former longtime president of Microsoft Canada

www.showthefineprint.org

Posted by at No comments:

Community meeting on dangers of wifi in schools

This is part 1 of the lecture, with Catherine Steiner Adair.

Questioning the Safety of Our Children’s Exposure to Wireless
Radiation – An Important Discussion for Parents

Wednesday, June 10th, 2015, Framingham, MA


In this video, Dr. Devra Davis introduces Catherine Steiner-Adair. This is Part 1.

Everyone included in this talk (will be in other videos):

• Dr. Devra Davis, Ph.D – Founder of the Environmental Health Trust and Award-Winning scientist and author of Disconnect--the Truth About Cell Phone Radiation

• Catherine Steiner-Adair – Ed. D, Clinical Psychologist, Consultant, Speaker, and Author of The Big Disconnect: Protecting Childhood and Family Relationships in the Digital Age

• Janet Newton. President of EMR Policy Institute

• Dr. R.S. Sharma, Senior Deputy Director General & Scientist – G, Indian Council of Medical Research. A leader of the Indian federal government research on the public health and environmental
impacts of mobile phones and other wireless devices

• Frank Clegg, CEO of Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST) and former longtime president of Microsoft Canada

www.showthefineprint.org

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ucEOmXMhq4


Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

All I Really Need to Know About EMF I Learned After My Wife Got Sick





All I Really Need to Know About EMF I Learned After My Wife Got Sick

A Brief History of Electrosmog

BY JONATHAN MIRIN
 


Published: May 26, 2015

"Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." — Tobacco executive internal memo, 1969
"There really are people who feel pain, etc., related to EMF, etc., and rather than have them becoming hysterical, etc., I would quietly leave them alone." — Former California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey in an email to Pacific Gas & Electric's Brian Cherry seized by California authorities, 2010.
History was never my favorite subject. I preferred English, theatre, religion — subjects where the imagination seemed unrestricted by the weight of historical facts. Of course, I had heard the truism about not being able to understand the present without knowing the past. I appreciated the idea intellectually. But it wasn't until my wife Godeliève Richard, a Swiss dancer/choreographer and visual artist, became sick in the spring of 2010 and we came to understand, after three torturous years, that the root of her suffering was her sensitivity to RF (radio frequency) wireless radiation of the sort emitted by cell towers, cell phones, computers trying to pick up Wifi, Wifi enabled routers, cordless phones, tablets, our electric meter, etc., etc., etc., that I became an avid student of history.
We began reading books, articles, websites. We watched documentaries. We spoke with activists. It took me several months to completely accept that EHS (Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity) was what had derailed our lives and stolen time and energy from our now three-year-old son. Members of our family and friends quietly confided their belief to me that this must be a mental problem. In a way, I wished they were right. How would we live? How would she survive?
Sometimes at four in the morning after another sleepless night when we were deciding whether or not to go to the emergency room, it seemed like death was a possible final outcome. Luckily, we found a solution for our home that has allowed her to sleep well again and begin to heal, however she still can't leave the house for more than a few hours at a time. Among other adjustments we have made, a doctor recommended a company making biotuners, a small rectangular casing placed on the fuse box in order to deactivate the harmful information from electrosmog.
One of my many layers of resistance to accepting that electromagnetic pollution or electrosmog was what had destroyed her health was a simple, naive faith in the regulatory powers of the U.S. government. This radiation is literally everywhere. If it could be so dangerous, how could it be allowed on such a massive scale? But after I found the startling analogy between RF and asbestos and cigarettes laid out on more than one advocacy group site, things began to click.
The tobacco industry’s manipulation of the science and the U.S. court system began in the 1950s. In 1981, Japanese researcher Takeshi Hirayama definitively established the link between cancer and second hand smoke. Every year that passed added to the death toll in America. Why the lag time? One reason was that the tobacco industry had hired product defense firms that specialized in one product: doubt. If you can define the parameters of a scientific study that you pay for, it turns out there is quite a good chance the scientists you have hired will reach a conclusion that supports your position that there is no problem. Cell phone companies have hired, literally, some of the same supporting cast used by the tobacco industry.
In May, 2014, tobacco scientist Peter Valberg of product defense firm Gradient, testified in Worcester, MA, to the Worcester Zoning Board of Appeals about the safety of National Grid's smart meter pilot program. Smart meters are two-way RF transmission devices that the Massachusetts of Department of Public Utilities issued an order for utility companies to install on June 12, 2014. The Mass DPU relied on Valberg's testimony in their assessment that the radiation emitted from smart meters was safe because it is below FCC limits. A fraud complaint was filed with the MA Attorney General's office against the DPU in March.
It turns out our electric meter was installed in the late 90's already equipped to pulse RF radiation every couple of seconds from the meter to the street. I called our electric company and told them that radiation made my wife sick and asked that they pull in to our driveway as they drive by and read the meter in person. I was told this was not possible. I suggested that we could simply shield the meter and they could lift the shielding off to take the readings. But this, they warned, would lead to potentially more expensive "estimated readings" when their truck got back to headquarters without a reading from our meter.

Telecom Companies Hold A Legislative Trump Card

Between 1994 and 1998, telecom companies made nearly $12 million in campaign contributions to members of Congress. In 1996, they helped write the Telecommunications Act, which stipulates that "no state or local government . . . may regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communication Commission's] regulations concerning such emissions."
This provision stripped my town's Zoning Board of Appeals, not to mention every U.S. individual, local and state government, of the ability to say “no” to a cell tower proposal on the basis of health concerns. The result is that although the now more than 6,000 independent studies demonstrating health risks may be mentioned during the hearing process, the tower AT&T proposed on our road had to be denied on some other grounds, like its proximity to a road designated as a Scenic Byway or perhaps the average of 15 percent drop in property value for those unfortunate enough to live next to it.
Luckily for us — and even better for the elderly people and children who would have been living about 150 feet from the tower — AT&T withdrew their proposal. They didn't say why, but looking at the pattern of new cell tower placement around the U.S., we can surmise that this was a business decision based on their strategy of following the path of least resistance. In other words, putting a new tower on the road of a publicly known person suffering from EHS probably looked a little too costly. My wife and I make plays for a living and our latest, Innocenzo, tells the tale of a clown who, after visiting many doctors and healers, finally realizes that he has become electro-hypersensitive. We didn't have to do much research.
Cell companies have become adept at hiding their antennas and AT&T wanted to stash the one designated for our road in an oversized barn silo. In Switzerland, where we tour our plays in French, there is a tower hidden in a church steeple not far from our apartment. Consequently, although Switzerland has the lowest RF limits in the world, Godeliève has a harder time leaving the house there than the rural road where we live in the U.S. Unfortunately, hiding cell towers or decorating them as trees does nothing to change health impacts.
A German study published in 2004 (Eger, et al), found that living within 400 meters of a cell tower increased the likelihood of developing cancer by 300%. These results are typical of the growing number of studies being done outside the U.S. where the distinctive lack (read $0) of federal funds being spent on RF safety research seems unsurprising given the "over 400 million dollars in political contributions and lobbying [by the wireless industry]," according to lawyer Andrew Campanelli who now specializes in preventing unwanted cell tower installation after starting his career as a telecom lawyer.

Everyone is Electro-sensitive

It might seem, at first glance, that people like Godeliève should be shipped off to an island so that the rest of the un-sensitive population can enjoy their wireless lives. Although countries are establishing radiation free zones for people like her, everyone is electro-sensitive. Everyone's melatonin production (the substance which cleans up cancer-causing free radicals, among other things, while we sleep) is inhibited when exposed to levels of RF currently deemed safe. Humans are electrical beings composed of cells that have been proven damaged by much, much lower levels of RF than you would experience in your typical coffee shop or elementary school.
One key historical moment concerns the Federal Communication Commission standards themselves. Back in 1953, researcher Herman Schwan, a former Nazi scientist imported in 1949 to work for the U.S. Navy, suggested a thermal (heat) exposure limit for RFs based on heating effects he had noted when radar operators cooked hot dogs in their microwave beams. In other words, if your cell phone doesn't measurably heat your skin, it must be okay, even if you are a fetus, newborn or otherwise more vulnerable being than the top 10% of U.S. military recruits in 1989, the skull of whom the FCC bases its SAR (specific absorption rate of RF by the brain) calculations upon.
The patently absurd idea, if you are a biologist, of no cellular damage happening below the thermal limit has been challenged by the American Pediatric Association, the U.S. Department of the Interior (who are concerned about effects on migratory birds), the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the California Medical Association, Swisscom (in a patent application), and many others. The FCC standard is so high that telecom companies have had no incentive to engineer anything that might be even a little bit safer. Isn't it every person's right to stream an HD movie on his/her phone while waiting in line at the post office? How about two at time? How about 16?
Nothing like the changes in federal policy that are needed have ever come as an initiative from the corporations or government. It has only happened, as Ralph Nader likes to remind us, because people came together in the common wish for a place where people can drink clean water, breathe clean air, share the same rights as other citizens and, in this case, be able to live their lives without having their health damaged in the relative safety of their own homes.

Global RF Reduction Efforts

One of the ironies of the RF radiation puzzle is that there are many straightforward steps that can be taken by individuals, governments and corporations to reduce this multiple source 24/7 exposure. This year France and Taiwan became the first countries to pass national legislation aimed at protecting the public from wireless emissions. In this case, they took their cue from emerging health research and primarily defined the public as very young children, whose thinner skulls allow lower levels of RF to penetrate deeper into the brain. There will be no more wi-fi in French nursery schools; in elementary schools it will be turned off except when needed.
National legislation of this sort, besides being progressive and forward-thinking also happens to be in the financial self-interest of governments around the world. Insurance companies have quietly stopped offering coverage for wireless-related health problems. Who is going to pay for skyrocketing rates of cancer, Alzheimer's, ADHD, autism, and burn-out leading to missed work days? Since there can be no definitive 1-to-1 correlation for the multiple environmental factors weighing on our systems, how are you going to make anyone pay the bill for what Swedish researcher Lennart Hardell descibes as "the world's greatest biological experiment ever"?
The makers of wireless technology are in a terrible spot. Like the tobacco companies, they have to keep denying the existence of a problem or face major legal and financial repercussions.
The 2011 World Health Organization classifies RF as a Class 2B "possible carcinogen," along with lead and car exhaust. In the 2014 French documentary "Ondes, Science, Manigances" (Microwaves, Science and Lies), director Jean Heches demonstrates that despite this classification, the WHO is extremely influenced (to put it politely) by the telecom industry. Sweden, the first country where EHS is officially recognized as a functional impairment, offers a cell phone network and a provider of health care coverage to around 300,000 people with the sensitivity. Lennart Hardell's 2014 research on long term cell phone use in that country suggests that RF should be re-classified as a Class 1 "known carcinogen." However, this reclassification is a financial impossibility (from a certain privileged point of view) as there are trillions of dollars and hefty sections of the ecomony depending on the perpetuation of doubt. Unsurprisingly, Hardell has become the victim of a smear campaign.
The makers of wireless technology are in a terrible spot. Like the tobacco companies, they have to keep denying the existence of a problem or face major legal and financial repercussions. Utility companies and the state bureaucracies charged with regulating them (or abetting them in California's case), after having installed RF-emitting transmitters on our homes, are in the same bind. So you can bet no corporate movement will be made towards protecting the public until we create a financial incentive for them — or they have no choice. That is, if history has anything to teach us.
Jonathan Mirin's plays have been performed around the U.S. and internationally. He co-founded Piti Theatre Company with his wife Godeliève Richard in 2004, whose recent productions include 28 FEET (about growing up with Crohn's disease), To Bee or Not to Bee (about honeybee disappearance) and Innocenzo. For more about Piti Theatre Company's production Innocenzo visit  www.ptco.org/innocenzo. Upcoming tour dates include: June 2, 2015: Greenfield Community Television live taping, Greenfield MA, and June 6, 2015: Shelburne Falls' Riverfest, at the Shelburne Senior Center, 1 pm.

Wireless Safety Resources

 

MASSACHUSETTS

Worcester Opts Out WorcesterOptsOut.org
Halt Smart Meters in Massachusetts HaltMAsmartmeters.org
Sandura’s Blog Sandaura.wordpress.com
No Mass Smart Meters nomasssmartmeters.wordpress.com
Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council Berklitchfieldenviro.org
Piti Theatre Company Ptco.org/shows/innocenzo/en/
Healing Earth Refuge www.meetup.com/healove/ 
Cell Tower at DS Middle/High School dscelltower.wordpress.com

NEW ENGLAND

EMR Safety Consulting EMRsafety.net   

NATIONAL

Smart Grid Awareness SmartGridAwareness.org
The EMR Policy Institute Emrpolicy.org
EMF Safety Network emfsafetynetwork.org
Citizens for Safe Technology citizensforsafetechnology.org
Stop Smart Meters! StopSmartMeters.org
Center for Safer Wireless centerforsaferwireless.us
Take Back Your Power TakeBackYourPower.net
Smart Meter Global News SmartMeterNewsUpdates.wordpress.com
Facebook: Stop NG Smart Grid

This article appears in the Summer 2015 issue of Spirit of Change

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Breaking: Proposed New Bill to study the health impacts of electromagnetic fields in MA



SD1044




By Ms. Spilka (by request), a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 1222) of Cece Doucette for legislation to create a special commission to study the health impacts of electromagnetic fields. Public Health.
SECTION 1. There shall be a special commission on the health impacts of electromagnetic fields on the citizens of the Commonwealth. The commission shall be comprised of the House and Senate Chairmen of the Joint Committee on Public Health as well as the ranking House and Senate minority members on the committee; the House and Senate Chairmen of the Joint Committee on Telecommunication, Utilities and Energy and the ranking House and Senate minority members; the Commissioner of the Department of Public Health or his designee; a scientist who is a specialist in environmental medicine and is knowledgeable about the health effects of electromagnetic fields who shall be appointed by the Governor; a pediatrician who shall be appointed by the Governor; three specialists in public health or environmental medicine, one each who shall be appointed by the Governor, the Senate President and the Speaker of the House; a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society who is a specialist in environmental medicine who shall serve as chair; a member of the Massachusetts Board of Education; and a member of a Massachusetts school board or committee. 

Said Commission shall study all facets of health impacts of electromagnetic fields from all sources, including but not limited to the use of cellular devices, utility smart meters, Wi-Fi, and the use of Wi-Fi in public schools. Said Commission shall include in its report an investigation of the health impacts of electromagnetic fields, including but not limited to the effects on reproductive systems, brain function including memory loss, retarded learning, performance impairment in children, headaches and neurodegenerative conditions, melatonin suppression and sleep disorders, fatigue, hormonal imbalances, immune dysregulation such as allergic and inflammatory responses, cardiac and blood pressure problems, genotoxic effects like miscarriage, cancers such as childhood leukemia, and childhood and adult brain tumors. Said Commission shall study whether electromagnetic radiation exposure may have a disparate impact on potentially vulnerable subgroups including children, fetuses, pregnant women, the elderly and those with preexisting illnesses or impairments. Said Commission shall investigate whether children are more vulnerable to electromagnetic radiation due to their developing nervous systems and their thinner skulls. 

The commission shall convene no later than 60 days following of the enactment of this bill. The commission shall file a report with the clerks of the House and Senate no later than July 31, 2016. The commission shall make recommendations to the General Court on legislation designed to protect the health of the citizens of the Commonwealth including a recommendation on whether, within public schools, children’s exposure to electromagnetic fields, including those from Wi-Fi, should be eliminated or reduced. The commission may also make recommendations on any other matter that may come before the commission that will enhance the protection of the public health.
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe - Electromagnetic Radiation, Health and Children

Is your mobile phone, Wi-fi, Smart meter, or baby monitor safe? Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe highlights the health concerns regarding use of radiofrequency (Group 2b Carcinogen) communication devices in this concise summary. Aimed especially at protecting the health of children, but valuable to all, this presentation highlights the current cautions from independent scientists globally on the issue of unregulated microwave exposure from rapidly escalating use of such devices and cell towers, etc. Unprecedented revenue has blocked appropriate precaution to protect health, and all should watch this informative, factual, easily understandable explanation of the real hazards of electromagnetic technology on living systems, and how to protect health.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Canadian Medical Association Journal reports Health Canada's wireless limits are "A Disaster to Public Health"

OTTAWA, May 7, 2015 /CNW/ - The Canadian Medical Association Journal today published a scathing condemnation of Health Canada's safety guidelines for cell phones and Wifi.

The Journal (CMAJ) interviewed multiple international experts in radiation and cancer, who warn that the microwave levels allowed in Canadian classrooms, residences and workplaces are, "a disaster to public health."
One scientist said that given the overwhelming evidence that wireless radiation is harmful, Health Canada staff are either, "unwilling or not competent to make evaluation of the current literature."
The article points out that Canada's Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health recently completed three days of hearings on Canada's safety guidelines, and sent federal scientists back to the office to re-examine 140 recent studies that show wireless radiation emitted by cell phones and WiFi can cause harm.
One oncologist interviewed by the CMAJ said that Canada's safety guidelines for wireless radiation need to be "urgently revised" due to the obvious risk of cancer.
The CMAJ article revealed that James McNamee, who wrote Health Canada's safety code, has also co-authored academic papers with scientists who openly accept payments from the wireless industry.
"That Canada's wireless safety code is out of date and mired in conflict of interest is no longer a question it's a fact," said Frank Clegg, CEO of Canadians For Safe Technology (C4ST).
"We're hoping the Parliamentary Standing Committee will have strong recommendations to fix it," said Clegg.

SOURCE C4ST: Canadians For Safe Technology

 For further information: Interviews Frank Clegg, Contact: media@C4ST.org, Phone: 705-444-9662,


Press release:
or shortened: http://cnw.ca/j1IM3

CMAJ article:

Background:
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Scientist Dr. David Carpenter explains the issues with Wi-Fi in schools.


This is the testimony of Dr. David Carpenter (co-author of the Bioinitiative Report) that he gave when serving as an expert witness in a case in the Portland, OR Public Schools on Dec 2011. In this testimony, Dr. Carpenter clearly explains the issues with Wi-Fi in schools. Please download the PDF and read it.




Posted by at No comments:

International Scientist Appeal to UN on Electromagnetic Fields 190 scientists from 39 countries

BREAKING NEWS 
International Scientist Appeal to UN on Electromagnetic Fields 190 scientists from 39 countries


3-minute intro video: https://vimeo.com/123468632   
Why? "Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life." 

"Given the existing body of published research, many scientists, doctors, engineers and public health officials globally are now calling for IARC’s classification of EMF to be upgraded to a Group 2A “Probable Carcinogen.” The Appeal calls for the WHO to take heed of the urgency of this and go further."   

"To protect our children, ourselves, and our ecosystem, we must reduce exposure by establishing more protective guidelines."   

 "And so, today, scientists from around the world are submitting an Appeal to the United Nations, its member states and the World Health Organization, to provide leadership in dealing with this emerging public health crisis."  
http://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Wifi microwave radiation health risks at school.

Woman Cuts Family Off From WiFi Over Health Concerns

A local mother's health concerns prompted her to cut her family off from wireless and wants more research conducted into the safety of WiFi. Lisa Sigell reports.

Here's the link to the original story and video.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/11464675-only-on-2-woman-cuts-family-off-from-wifi-over-health-concerns/
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, April 24, 2015

School Boards Left On The Hook For Wi-Fi Injuries. By Janis Hoffman

School officials could be personally liable for exposing children and staff to microwave radiation in our schools.
School districts, school boards and school medical health officers have been notified that Lloyd’s of London has now excluded any liability coverage for injuries, “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” This would include the microwave radiation emitting from the commercial wi-fi transmitters and wireless devices in our schools.
In response to a request for clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s:
“The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.”
Lloyd’s of London, one of the world’s largest insurance companies often leads the way in protection by taking on risks that no one else will. At the end of this article there is a copy of a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation.
In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) dropped a bombshell on the wireless industry. They designated exposure to wi-fi radiation to be a possible human carcinogen. As well in the 1990s illnesses resulting from asbestos exposure, covered by Lloyd’s at the time, almost destroyed the insurance company. Due to these issues, it appears Lloyd’s is acting fast to avoid another such financial fiasco by not covering illnesses that result from exposure to wireless radiation.
With the Lloyd’s of London announcement, parents and teachers are left with this question: exactly who is liable if their child is harmed by wi-fi in their school? Concomitantly, are the individuals who approved the installation of wireless internet networks in our schools to be held personally liable for negligence?
School officials and administrators appear to be in a bind as they have refused to acknowledge the 1000s of peer-reviewed, non-industry funded studies by scientists and medical experts that show that wi-fi radiation is harmful, especially to children. Moreover, their dogged allegiance to Health Canada’s now invalidated safety guidelines have left parents with nowhere else to turn other than the courts. It appears that school boards’ intransigent position on the issue may have left board members themselves vulnerable to being personally sued.
School boards may be covered by directors’ insurance which applies to people who are performing their duties “in good faith.” The question is: are they still protected when it could be shown that they were being “willfully blind?”
Definitions:
“In good faith:” in contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract.
“Wilful blindness:” (sometimes called ignorance of law, wilful ignorance orcontrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting him or herself in a position where he or she will be unaware of facts that would render him or her liable.
Documents and Presentations posted:
http://parentsforasafeschool.blogspot.ca/
Twitter:
#parentsforsafeschools @wannabewired @4safeschools
'
The original source for this article found here:
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Your cellphone (and WiFi) is killing you: What people don’t want you to know about electromagnetic fields

The industry doesn't want to admit it, but the science is becoming clearer: Sustained EMF exposure is dangerous. This includes WiFi that our children are exposed to for hours at school day in day out.

(Credit: Russell Shively, Oleg GawriloFF via Shutterstock/Salon)

Excerpted from "Overpowered: What Science Tells Us About the Dangers of Cell Phones and Other Wifi-age Devices" by Martin Blank, PhD
You may not realize it, but you are participating in an unauthorized experiment—“the largest biological experiment ever,” in the words of Swedish neuro-oncologist Leif Salford. For the first time, many of us are holding high-powered microwave transmitters—in the form of cell phones—directly against our heads on a daily basis.
Cell phones generate electromagnetic fields (EMF), and emit electromagnetic radiation (EMR). They share this feature with all modern electronics that run on alternating current (AC) power (from the power grid and the outlets in your walls) or that utilize wireless communication. Different devices radiate different levels of EMF, with different characteristics.
What health effects do these exposures have?
Therein lies the experiment.
The many potential negative health effects from EMF exposure (including many cancers and Alzheimer’s disease) can take decades to develop. So we won’t know the results of this experiment for many years—possibly decades. But by then, it may be too late for billions of people.
Today, while we wait for the results, a debate rages about the potential dangers of EMF. The science of EMF is not easily taught, and as a result, the debate over the health effects of EMF exposure can get quite complicated. To put it simply, the debate has two sides. On the one hand, there are those who urge the adoption of a precautionary approach to the public risk as we continue to investigate the health effects of EMF exposure. This group includes many scientists, myself included, who see many danger signs that call out strongly for precaution. On the other side are those who feel that we should wait for definitive proof of harm before taking any action. The most vocal of this group include representatives of industries who undoubtedly perceive threats to their profits and would prefer that we continue buying and using more and more connected electronic devices.
This industry effort has been phenomenally successful, with widespread adoption of many EMF-generating technologies throughout the world. But EMF has many other sources as well. Most notably, the entire power grid is an EMF-generation network that reaches almost every individual in America and 75% of the global population. Today, early in the 21st century, we find ourselves fully immersed in a soup of electromagnetic radiation on a nearly continuous basis.

What we know
The science to date about the bioeffects (biological and health outcomes) resulting from exposure to EM radiation is still in its early stages. We cannot yet predict that a specific type of EMF exposure (such as 20 minutes of cell phone use each day for 10 years) will lead to a specific health outcome (such as cancer). Nor are scientists able to define what constitutes a “safe” level of EMF exposure.
However, while science has not yet answered all of our questions, it has determined one fact very clearly—all electromagnetic radiation impacts living beings. As I will discuss, science demonstrates a wide range of bioeffects linked to EMF exposure. For instance, numerous studies have found that EMF damages and causes mutations in DNA—the genetic material that defines us as individuals and collectively as a species. Mutations in DNA are believed to be the initiating steps in the development of cancers, and it is the association of cancers with exposure to EMF that has led to calls for revising safety standards. This type of DNA damage is seen at levels of EMF exposure equivalent to those resulting from typical cell phone use.
The damage to DNA caused by EMF exposure is believed to be one of the mechanisms by which EMF exposure leads to negative health effects. Multiple separate studies indicate significantly increased risk (up to two and three times normal risk) of developing certain types of brain tumors following EMF exposure from cell phones over a period of many years. One review that averaged the data across 16 studies found that the risk of developing a tumor on the same side of the head as the cell phone is used is elevated 240% for those who regularly use cell phones for 10 years or more. An Israeli study found that people who use cell phones at least 22 hours a month are 50% more likely to develop cancers of the salivary gland (and there has been a four-fold increase in the incidence of these types of tumors in Israel between 1970 and 2006). And individuals who lived within 400 meters of a cell phone transmission tower for 10 years or more were found to have a rate of cancer three times higher than those living at a greater distance. Indeed, the World Health Organization (WHO) designated EMF—including power frequencies and radio frequencies—as a possible cause of cancer.
While cancer is one of the primary classes of negative health effects studied by researchers, EMF exposure has been shown to increase risk for many other types of negative health outcomes. In fact, levels of EMF thousands of times lower than current safety standards have been shown to significantly increase risk for neurodegenerative diseases (such as Alzheimer’s and Lou Gehrig’s disease) and male infertility associated with damaged sperm cells. In one study, those who lived within 50 meters of a high voltage power line were significantly more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease when compared to those living 600 meters or more away. The increased risk was 24% after one year, 50% after 5 years, and 100% after 10 years. Other research demonstrates that using a cell phone between two and four hours a day leads to 40% lower sperm counts than found in men who do not use cell phones, and the surviving sperm cells demonstrate lower levels of motility and viability.
EMF exposure (as with many environmental pollutants) not only affects people, but all of nature. In fact, negative effects have been demonstrated across a wide variety of plant and animal life. EMF, even at very low levels, can interrupt the ability of birds and bees to navigate. Numerous studies link this effect with the phenomena of avian tower fatalities (in which birds die from collisions with power line and communications towers). These same navigational effects have been linked to colony collapse disorder (CCD), which is devastating the global population of honey bees (in one study, placement of a single active cell phone in front of a hive led to the rapid and complete demise of the entire colony). And a mystery illness affecting trees around Europe has been linked to WiFi radiation in the environment.
There is a lot of science—highquality, peer-reviewed science—demonstrating these and other very troubling outcomes from exposure to electromagnetic radiation. These effects are seen at levels of EMF that, according to regulatory agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates cell phone EMF emissions in the United States, are completely safe.
An unlikely activist
I have worked at Columbia University since the 1960s, but I was not always focused on electromagnetic fields. My PhDs in physical chemistry from Columbia University and colloid science from the University of Cambridge provided me with a strong, interdisciplinary academic background in biology, chemistry, and physics. Much of my early career was spent investigating the properties of surfaces and very thin films, such as those found in a soap bubble, which then led me to explore the biological membranes that encase living cells.
I studied the biochemistry of infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS), which causes the lungs of newborns to collapse (also called hyaline membrane disease). Through this research, I found that the substance on the surface of healthy lungs could form a network that prevented collapse in healthy babies (the absence of which causes the problem for IRDS sufferers).
A food company subsequently hired me to study how the same surface support mechanism could be used to prevent the collapse of the air bubbles added to their ice cream. As ice cream is sold by volume and not by weight, this enabled the company to reduce the actual amount of ice cream sold in each package. (My children gave me a lot of grief about that job, but they enjoyed the ice cream samples I brought home.)
I also performed research exploring how electrical forces interact with the proteins and other components found in nerve and muscle membranes. In 1987, I was studying the effects of electric fields on membranes when I read a paper by Dr. Reba Goodman demonstrating some unusual effects of EMF on living cells. She had found that even relatively weak power fields from common sources (such as those found near power lines and electrical appliances) could alter the ability of living cells to make proteins. I had long understood the importance of electrical forces on the function of cells, but this paper indicated that magnetic forces (which are a key aspect of electromagnetic fields) also had significant impact on living cells.
Like most of my colleagues, I did not think this was possible. By way of background, there are some types of EMF that everyone had long acknowledged are harmful to humans. For example, X-rays and ultraviolet radiation are both recognized carcinogens. But these are ionizing forms of radiation. Dr. Goodman, however, had shown that even non-ionizing radiation, which has much less energy than X-rays, was affecting a very basic property of cells—the ability to stimulate protein synthesis.
Because non-ionizing forms of EMF have so much less energy than ionizing radiation, it had long been believed that non-ionizing electromagnetic fields were harmless to humans and other biological systems. And while it was acknowledged that a high enough exposure to non-ionizing EMF could cause a rise in body temperature—and that this temperature increase could cause cell damage and lead to health problems—it was thought that low levels of non-ionizing EMF that did not cause this rise in temperature were benign.
In over 20 years of experience at some of the world’s top academic institutions, this is what I’d been taught and this is what I’d been teaching. In fact, my department at Columbia University (like every other comparable department at other universities around the world) taught an entire course in human physiology without even mentioning magnetic fields, except when they were used diagnostically to detect the effects of the electric currents in the heart or brain. Sure magnets and magnetic fields can affect pieces of metal and other magnets, but magnetic fields were assumed to be inert, or essentially powerless, when it came to human physiology.
As you can imagine, I found the research in Dr. Goodman’s paper intriguing. When it turned out that she was a colleague of mine at Columbia, with an office just around the block, I decided to follow up with her, face-to-face. It didn’t take me long to realize that her data and arguments were very convincing. So convincing, in fact, that I not only changed my opinion on the potential health effects of magnetism, but I also began a long collaboration with her that has been highly productive and personally rewarding.
During our years of research collaboration, Dr. Goodman and I published many of our results in respected scientific journals. Our research was focused on the cellular level—how EMF permeate the surfaces of cells and affect cells and DNA—and we demonstrated several observable, repeatable health effects from EMF on living cells. As with all findings published in such journals, our data and conclusions were peer reviewed. In other words, our findings were reviewed prior to publication to ensure that our techniques and conclusions, which were based on our measurements, were appropriate. Our results were subsequently confirmed by other scientists, working in other laboratories around the world, independent from our own.
A change in tone
Over the roughly 25 years Dr. Goodman and I have been studying the EMF issue, our work has been referenced by numerous scientists, activists, and experts in support of public health initiatives including the BioInitiative Report, which was cited by the European Parliament when it called for stronger EMF regulations. Of course, our work was criticized in some circles, as well. This was to be expected, and we welcomed it—discussion and criticism is how science advances. But in the late 1990s, the criticism assumed a different character, both angrier and more derisive than past critiques.
On one occasion, I presented our findings at a US Department of Energy annual review of research on EMF. As soon as I finished my talk, a well-known Ivy League professor said (without any substantiation) that the data I presented were “impossible.” He was followed by another respected academic, who stated (again without any substantiation) that I had most likely made some “dreadful error.” Not only were these men wrong, but they delivered their comments with an intense and obvious hostility.
I later discovered that both men were paid consultants of the power industry—one of the largest generators of EMF. To me, this explained the source of their strong and unsubstantiated assertions about our research. I was witnessing firsthand the impact of private, profit-driven industrial efforts to confuse and obfuscate the science of EMF bioeffects.
Not the first time
I knew that this was not the first time industry opposed scientific research that threatened their business models. I’d seen it before many times with tobacco, asbestos, pesticides, hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”), and other industries that paid scientists to generate “science” that would support their claims of product safety.
That, of course, is not the course of sound science. Science involves generating and testing hypotheses. One draws conclusions from the available, observable evidence that results from rigorous and reproducible experimentation. Science is not sculpting evidence to support your existing beliefs. That’s propaganda. As Dr. Henry Lai (who, along with Dr. Narendra Singh, performed the groundbreaking research demonstrating DNA damage from EMF exposure) explains, “a lot of the studies that are done right now are done purely as PR tools for the industry.”
An irreversible trend
Of course EMF exposure—including radiation from smart phones, the power lines that you use to recharge them, and the other wide variety of EMF-generating technologies—is not equivalent to cigarette smoking. Exposure to carcinogens and other harmful forces from tobacco results from the purely voluntary, recreational activity of smoking. If tobacco disappeared from the world tomorrow, a lot of people would be very annoyed, tobacco farmers would have to plant other crops, and a few firms might go out of business, but there would be no additional impact.
In stark contrast, modern technology (the source of the humanmade electromagnetic fields discussed here) has fueled a remarkable degree of innovation, productivity, and improvement in the quality of life. If tomorrow the power grid went down, all cell phone networks would cease operation, millions of computers around the world wouldn’t turn on, and the night would be illuminated only by candlelight and the moon—we’d have a lot less EMF exposure, but at the cost of the complete collapse of modern society.
EMF isn’t just a by-product of modern society. EMF, and our ability to harness it for technological purposes, is the cornerstone of modern society. Sanitation, food production and storage, health care—these are just some of the essential social systems that rely on power and wireless communication. We have evolved a society that is fundamentally reliant upon a set of technologies that generate forms and levels of electromagnetic radiation not seen on this planet prior to the 19th century.
As a result of the central role these devices play in modern life, individuals are understandably predisposed to resist information that may challenge the safety of activities that result in EMF exposures. People simply cannot bear the thought of restricting their time with— much less giving up—these beloved gadgets. This gives industry a huge advantage because there is a large segment of the public that would rather not know.
Precaution
My message is not to abandon gadgets—like most people, I too love and utilize EMF-generating gadgets. Instead, I want you to realize that EMF poses a real risk to living creatures and that industrial and product safety standards must and can be reconsidered. The solutions I suggest are not prohibitive. I recommend that as individuals we adopt the notion of “prudent avoidance,” minimizing our personal EMF exposure and maximizing the distance between us and EMF sources when those devices are in use. Just as you use a car with seat belts and air bags to increase the safety of the inherently dangerous activity of driving your car at a relatively high speed, you should consider similar risk-mitigating techniques for your personal EMF exposure.
On a broader social level, adoption of the Precautionary Principle in establishing new, biologically based safety standards for EMF exposure for the general public would be, I believe, the best approach. Just as the United States became the first nation in the world to regulate the production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) when science indicated the threat to earth’s ozone layer—long before there was definitive proof of such a link—our governments should respond to the significant public health threat of EMF exposure. If EMF levels were regulated just as automobile carbon emissions are regulated, this would force manufacturers to design, create, and sell devices that generate much lower levels of EMF.
No one wants to return to the dark ages, but there are smarter and safer ways to approach our relationship—as individuals and across society—with the technology that exposes us to electromagnetic radiation.
Excerpted from “Overpowered: What Science Tells Us About the Dangers of Cell Phones and Other Wifi-age Devices” by Martin Blank, PhD. Published by Seven Stories Press, March 2014. ISBN 978-1-60980-509-8. All rights reserved.



Original article from Salon.com:

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)