Cellular companies killed TV show
From: Iris Atzmon
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 11:13 AM
Unusual news once in a life time: Here is something I was involved with helping the investigators of this programm, some of you were interviewed in England to this programm, that was supposed to be screened a year ago, on antennas risk, on Israeli TV.
In a very unusual exposure, the journalist Aviv Lavie, who saw this programm before it was killed by the cell companies, exposed today in the national newspaper Maariv that the cellular companies, after seeing the result, decided not to allow the programm to be aired and concealed it. They funded this programm with $90,000. The journalist who prepared the programm, Dan Shilon, arrived at the conclusion that the cellular phones will be the cigarettes of the 21 century. The programme showed researchers of cell phones like Prof Korensten and Prof Levi Schachter, and the cellular companies did not like the fact that the programm included strong evidence on the risk of phones. The comapnies explained their behaviour by the fact that they did surveys that showed that everything they fund will not be trusted by the public. When asked why they funded it in the first place, Lior Verona (cell companies forum) said that they fund campaigns in millions, so what is $90,000 for them anyway.
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/885/675.html
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/885/676.html
And something else, no progress in the war on cancer as you already know
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/health/policy/24cancer.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=kolata%20cancer&st=cse
-----------------------------------------------
Decree by François-Noël Buffet, Senator and Mayor of Oullins (Rhône, France)
- Relay antennas: maximum radiation level 0.6 V/m and interdiction of any beam less han 100m from public buildings such as schools and crèches.
- All Next-up News: http://www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/2009.php
---------------------------------------------------
Brian T. Ulrich wrote on 4/24/09:
I'm in the process of trying to get my school to go back to wired internet.
A colleague of mine (who's a nice guy) made a few points in the spirit of fair debate:
1) a cell phone is 20x stronger than a wireless router
2) a computer itself emits more radiation than wireless
3) we should be more worried about a photocopier than wireless
Does not seem to jive with what I've read/heard...wondering if you have some articles or ideas or key points related to that that might help me respond. If he understands this and lobbies for it (and not against it), things are more likely to move forward.
Any tips/ideas/suggestions?
Thanks!
Brian
Answers -
Professor Magda Havas (Ph.D.), Associate Professor, Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University, CA, wrote:
Paul and Brian,
The exposure issue is a combination of frequency and intensity and method of transmission.
A photocopier does not use wireless technology or microwave radiation and the energy flows along a wire not through the air.
WiFi using microwave frequencies that travel through the air. Microwaves are absorbed by water (that's why you can heat/cook things like potatoes but not dried rice in a microwave oven) and people have a very high water content.
If you wish to compare the relative intensity of different devices they need to be at the same electromagnetic frequency. Hence the comparison of a cell phone with a computer and with a photocopier is a red herring.
-magda
Emil DeToffol of Less EMF Inc. (www.lessemf.com) replied that
1.) a cell phone is 20x stronger than a wireless router
Yes, at the distances normally used. That means both items should be banned.
2) a computer itself emits more radiation than wireless
Yes, the laptop wi-fi emission is quote strong close up. Therefore, a wireless network should not be allowed.
3.) we should be more worried about a photocopier than wireless
Yes, if you bathe yourself in a roomful of copiers all day long.
These arguments make no sense at all.
Best Regards,
Emil DeToffol
Less EMF Inc.
tel: +1-518-432-1550
fax: +1-309-422-4355
www.lessemf.com
Graham Philips of PowerWatch UK (www.powerwatch.org.uk)
Dear Brian:
1) So what! There is no evidence to suggest that this is a relevant statement for your colleague to make. There is evidence showing harm from those that live 50 to 100 metres from base stations (phone masts) that are exposed to levels lower than you would have if you used WiFi.
2) This shows complete ignorance on his part I'm afraid. Computers emit (minimal) power frequency electromagnetic fields (around 50 or 60 Hz) depending on what country you live in), and emit effectively nothing at radio frequency / microwave frequencies. There is no way these can be compared to WiFi. (PS to Sarah, WiFi's RF emissions are also electromagnetic fields).
3) Again, photocopiers emit power frequency electromagnetic fields -- they are not a source of comparison.
Your colleague should certainly have a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
Best Regards,
- Graham
Professor Olle Johansson Ph.D. wrote
Dear Mr. Brian Ulrich,
Please, call me at _____ during regular (Swedish) office hours and allow me to add some pieces of information to your very good question as well as your colleague's intriguing comments.
With my very best regards
Yours sincerely
Olle Johansson
Olle Johansson,
Assoc. Prof. The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden
Professor The Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Note: Professor Johansson has offered to visit the school where Brian works and give a lecture on the topic.
K.H. Tong (from Hong Kong) wrote:
You don't use a computer or a fax machine "CONTINUOUSLY" for 24 hours a day.
EMF is especially bad for kids with developing brain cells. THe "continuous" low dosage EMF won't kill you right away. It's the long term effect on growth and health that causes more and more countries (e.g. Germany) to ban the use of WiFi in areas like schools.
Micro-oven has more EMF (when in use) than any other household appliance, but you will use it for only a very short periods of time.
(A micro-wave oven can seriously hurt you if you stand too close to a microwave oven that is in use for too long a time. If you don't believe it, check it out with a EMF meter to see how powerful is the EMF leakage...even with the wire meshed window that is supposed to stop EMF leakage!.
WiFi is another kind of micro-wave oven (larger scale but lower dosage of EMF BUT "continuously" emitted.
Your friend is quite right in saying that we are already exposed to a growing number of equipments that emits EMF. The mentality of one more piece of EMF-emitting equipment will not kill you, is NOT the correct and safe approach.
I am an engineer and many of colleagues will say "you have to trade some of your health for modern day convenience... you win some, you lose some" to justify the installation of such equipments. EMF radiation adds up…they don't cancel out each other in the classroom.
The big question is should you use "health" as something tradeable especially your kids' health. They have no choice. You make the choice for them. This is a great responsibility and better play safe now than regret later.
There are already numerous research done on EMF effects on cells(including brain cells). Google them.
Wired system is less convenient BUT you still get access.
By the way, use an EMF meter to check also the WiFi radiation from the computer... NOT only the router. All the new laptops...net-tops are pre-installed with a wireless WiFi transmitter which is automatically activated by Windows and will give you the strongest EMF when they transmit to the router.
Rgds. KH Tong
Camilla Rees, Founder, www.ElectromagneticHealth.org sent this reply from Stan Hartman (Boulder, CO):
A cell phone is 20x stronger than a wireless router?
The maximum transmitter power for wi-fi is 1 watt. The maximum transmitter power for cell phones is 0.6 watt. But cell phones are smart, and since they have to rely on batteries rather than wall current like wi-fi, they use only as much power as they need, which is usually far less than the safety standard. Wi-Fi, on the other hand, always has all the power it needs, and often transmits 24/7. Who uses a cell phone without interruption 24/7?
A computer emits more radiation than wireless?
Computers are shielded to prevent RF interference - the only microwaves they radiate come from their wi-fi. With older CRT monitors there is some RF, but not in the microwave range, and nothing approaching 1 watt, but who uses them anymore anyway?
We should be more worried about a photocopier than wireless?
Please explain why. Is it the ozone? The magnetic fields when printing? What does this have to do with microwave radiation?
Charles Claessens, Member Verband Baubiologie <www.milieuziektes.nl> <www.milieuziektes.be> <www.hetbitje.nl> wrote:
Hello Paul,
1) depends on the mobile.Normally the routers go farther.
2) certainly not true
3) is a dumb statement
Anyone with a high-frequency meter can check this. Now it is theoretical gibberish.
Greetings,
Charles Claessens
kathryn seranduc wrote
I feel ill around a wireless router - in fact I feel it in the whole house.
But if I am in front of it , it hits me quite hard in the solar plexus - in the house I feel hyper and uneasy until it is turned off.
Even if you do not tell me a building is on wireless, I know right away, and generally feel uncomfortable or even sick in that building.
Janice Burns wrote
Hi Paul/Brian,
I am not an expert and what I have to report is entirely subjective. I have transferred to a new school and I am pleased to say that everything is cabled there and the Internet is really slow!!! That is great as far as I am concerned!!! I have an office where you have to leave to get any service for cell phones, which hopefully means that the RF cannot find its way in there!!!! Our school has recently adopted a policy of no cell phones or other electronic devices during instructional time or they will be confiscated!!!! Everyone is happy at my new school.
Meanwhile at my old school, which is now wireless since Sept 2008, the staff is constantly at odds with each other/sick and one parent recently told me that there is a pervasive air of depression in the school environment and that her son does not like going anymore ... wondering if you have heard of a study about the correlation between wireless environments and the 'happiness factor' ... my ES friend who occasionally teaches as a supply teacher at my old school says that being there now makes her sick ... maybe it's making them all sick, but they just don't realize it!
Unfortunately, how our bodies 'feel' is not hardcore 'data' and as most people do not feel what we do it is unbelievable that their constant 'stressed' out feelings can be attributed to what they cannot see in their environments. Some teachers may just think that their constant sickness is a viral thing or blame the kids' bad behaviour on a principal who does not support the staff enough in dealing with the off-the-wall students.
At least with a photocopier, you know where it is and when it is running you can go into another room. With wireless, how do you even know where the hot spots are? With a cell phone there is a choice of whether you use one at all. With a computer you can push the monitor back, use a larger font if necessary, limit your time on it and then turn it off when you are done, which is what we do. At least with cabled computers, you know where they are and you can avoid them if necessary. With a wireless router, most people do not even know where they are in any given room let alone be able to 'feel' where they are and move away. Sitting in a soup of low level radiation all day, maybe even sitting in a hot spot is just not acceptable.
Janice
Carl Katz wrote
Regarding the statements Brian's colleague made:
1.) a cell phone is 20x stronger than a wireless router
This is not correct. The router signal is strongest next to the router where it will rival that of a cell phone, and it is well documented that ambient levels of the pulsed microwave signal has caused electrosensitivity. Equally of concern is the signal at the laptop - every time you pull down an email, an attachment, download a file or view a web page there is a spike in the radiation that is measurable - that is what was demonstrated on the Panorama episode on Wi-Fi.
2) a computer itself emits more radiation than wireless
Not correct. A computer emit a low frequency electromagnetic field - some folks who are electrosensitive are so sensitive that they react to this field (and a field from any other appliance) but it is the information carrying radio wave from Wi-Fi that causes the biological trigger at the cell membrane which causes it to go into sympathetic stress (close down).
3.) we should be more worried about a photocopier than wireless
One's exposure to the field from a photocopier is occasional - yes, they do give off a significant field. In comparison, Wi-Fi broadcasts from the router at full strength - 7 x 24 - so children and educators exposed 6 or 7 hours a day are at risk form the signal from the router and also every time they use a laptop.
The way things are going, I am going to predict that there are going to be civil and criminal cases around this issue given the amount of independent science that we have and all the folks who are becoming electrosensitive (and other diseases). I am in touch with a woman from Ontario (Toronto I think) whose 6 year old son is electrosensitive and doubles over with abdominal pain and neurological distress when he comes into contact with Wi-Fi. I have had only one conversation with her and will get more details. Make no mistake that the unmitigated rollout of Wi-Fi in schools will become a huge liability for the schools, school board and government because the schools are not insured for health effects from electromagnetic radiation.
Hope this info helps,
Carl
A. Gray from Mast Sanity UK <www.mastsanity.org> wrote:
Dear Paul,
We put your message on the UK Masts list and got the following response.
Regards,
A Gray
Mast Sanity, UK
P.S. Please don't publish our e-mail address,thanks.
========
Firstly see the site
Www.wifiinschools.org.uk
And
Www.wiredchild.org
Some of the answers are there
1 comparing a cell phone with a wireless router is like comparing apples with pears
The exposure from a cell phone is usually short term intense exposure to the head. Exposure from a wireless router is long term whole body exposure.
Neither of these exposures have been proved to be safe.
Powerwatch have calculated as follows:
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/rf/wifi.asp
'Therefore 20 minutes on a mobile phone running at typical power levels would be equivalent to about 16 hours in a classroom with 20 wLAN PCs, approximately eight standard school days.'
2 The emission from a computer are mainly electromagnetic fields. These are not pulse modulated unlike those from WiFi. The radiation intensity experienced in a room with a wifi router is simlar to being in the main beam of a mobile phone mast Some people are sensitive to the fields emitted by computers but these have been reduced over the last 30 years by the manufacturers.
3 Rubbish!!
Photocopiers do have high electromagnetic fields but these fall of with distance so the only worry is to operators who stand next to them for hours every day and especially to pregnant women.
1.) a cell phone is 20x stronger than a wireless router
2) a computer itself emits more radiation than wireless
3.) we should be more worried about a photocopier than wireless
Hope this helps
Whoever wrote these 'myths' doesn't understand the first thing about the issue or is from the industry!
Sarah
My Own Two Cents:
I would personally love to get the university where I work to recognize the dangers involved with these energies and to dismantle its WiFi system -- not to mention the cell phone towers on top of one of the buildings nearby my office!!! And it seems as if they are installing a new one down the street from my office! I did give a presentation on the topic here and pasted posters all over campus advertising it; but the turnout was meager and none of the big wigs showed up to listen either. I had a 21 year-old female student last semester with a brain tumor.
Also, a colleague of mine has been suffering from high blood pressure and low IgA counts. (Now, where have I heard that before?) He also had to be hospitalized because of low hemoglobin counts and apparently almost died. He just came back from Australia where all his problems mysteriously disappeared only to come back again on his return. I am also personally suffering from bone pain which also disappears when I leave this campus for some mysterious reason!
It is obvious that your colleague in question doesn't have a clue and is seemingly just regurgitating some of the disinformation put out there by the wireless industry. Having said that, my gut feeling that it is the "quality" (i.e. its features or characteristics and negative in this case) of the EMR and not necessarily just the "quantity" here that can cause deleterious effects. One could hence compare it to, for example, serotonin and LSD, which are in fact chemically very similar. Minute amounts of the latter will have a very different and more drastic effect on a subject in comparison to larger amounts of the former. I think people working in the paradigm of classical physics seem to be focusing here on the quantity whereas people who are more familiar with the New Physics (Quantum Mechanics), which recognizes qualitative states of subtle energies as being able to cause drastic effects (e.g. the butterfly effect), are more able to discern the qualitative effects of these energies. Perhaps this is the reason why in homeopathic medicine more diluted remedies will have stronger effects -- which seems counterintuitive to most people. Furthermore, the quality of either matter or energy has to do with how it is put together and not just the sum (or amount) of its parts. As Einstein said:
"Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted." Albert Einstein
Regards,
Paul
Paul Raymond Doyon
TESOL Professional
MAT (TESOL), School for International Training
MA Advanced Japanese Studies, University of Sheffield
BA Psychology, University of California
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Island/5165/paulcv6.html
"The greatest challenge to the development of knowledge is the comfort of dogmatism - the security provided by unquestioned confidence in a statement of truth, or in a method of achieving truth - or even the shadow dogmatism of utter skepticism (for to be utterly skeptical is to dogmatically affirm that nothing can be known)..." David C. Kolb, Experiential Learning
ARTICLE 19 UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
