Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News
11 June 2010
Written by Thomas Corriher
Wednesday, 09 June 2010 05:40
I have long been known by certain friends and my entire family as that "crazy" guy.
The term was usually meant to describe me as being odd and unusual, rather than insane. Although, a few of those people may have suspected the latter from time to time. I'm okay with that, for being 'normal' is greatly overrated. I am considerably smarter than most people, so I have often taken refuge in the fact there there has always been a fine line between genius and insanity. Crazy like a fox, or crazy like a nut? I guess it's entirely a matter of perspective.
One of my episodes of "craziness" occurred during the presentation of my 7th grade science project. I was still in the public schools at that time, and the understanding of science by teachers and students alike was more than a little bit underwhelming.
They knew that light was really fast, but their overall understanding seemed to stop shortly thereafter. When I began preaching to them about fluorescent lights emitting radioactive, electromagnetic fields that were guaranteed to increase a person's cancer risk: well, everyone's eyes seemed to glaze over as if I were speaking a foreign language. I vainly explained that if these lights operated at high voltages, and these voltages were pulsed at high frequencies, then radioactive energy would be emitted, and moreover, they were already known for producing the full band of light energy (some of which is destructive, too). It is how radio waves are made: frequency pulses. The higher the frequency, the more dangerous overall, but voltage and proximity matter, too, in regards to its dangerous ionizing effects upon the human body. They just looked at me as if I were the stupid one.
They had those 'he's so special' looks on their faces, in most cases. Some had the 'he's so crazy' look. It was incomprehensible to them that I actually understood the topic that I had tried to lecture them about. Thus, I had the problem. I believe my teacher even failed me, while the dumbed-down science projects like "Do Plants Need Water?" were graded highly. It was the typical public school's act of rewarding only mediocrity.
Shortly thereafter, by some freak of the cosmos, it was actually proven by multiple independent studies that electrically-produced electromagnetic energy (radiation) from fluorescent lights and power lines were indeed a danger to health. This was long before cell phones existed, and these were considered ground-breaking findings. Eventually, my being 'crazy' (thinking independently and having a willingness to challenge authority) got me sent to military school to get "straightened out". These traits would have been considered virtues in more noble times.
It is time for me to get crazy again, with a topic that has far more importance and significance than radiation from power lines and fluorescent lights. Please read the remainder of this article with care, for it is vitally important that all of us spread this message, and you should understand why, by the time you have completed your reading. I realize that few of our readers have backgrounds in electrical or electronics engineering, so I am going to attempt to explain some otherwise complex topics in plain English. This article will explain that there is a new generation of light bulbs that produce radiation in a more dangerous manner than we have ever seen before. Thus, I need to explain some very basic laws of electricity, so that readers may understand the dilemma that we all face. Please patiently wade through this information, because you need to know it and understand it. I promise you this on my honor.
Electricity really only exists in motion.
Nothing happens without power transmission ("current"), and therefore, there is no real power without its movement. A disconnected battery is like a ship in a bottle. The ship is not really a sea vessel, because it never has the motion of floatation. Both these things have the potential to be more (a sea vessel or power supply), but they are both just paper weights until that time.
The 3 Core Types of Electrical Current (Don't Skip This)
There is D.C. (direct current). This is the steady state current: meaning that the voltage never changes while the current is flowing. This is the "cleanest" type of power. It may come from a filtered power supply or a battery. D.C. power will usually produce a tiny magnetic field along its wires; but overall, it will not bleed energy or effect other devices.
Next there is A.C. (alternating current). This is a current/voltage combination that is constantly changing, as if it were produced by a standard generator. It typically reverses itself (back flows) half of the time to show negative voltages and currents on equipment capable of measuring it. As alternating current cycles from its maximum to its minimum value, the time this takes in seconds is mathematically computed to produce the frequency calculation. In other words, frequency is a calculated measurement of how fast the voltage/current is changing. For instance, the standard frequency for power in the U.S. is 60 Hz.. This means that the power peaks and then drops to its lowest value exactly 60 times per second. Some readers may find it fascinating to know that this means the generators are rotating exactly 60 times per second too (60 R.P.M.).
Finally, there is pulsating D.C.. Pulsating direct current is a combination of D.C. and A.C.. The voltage and current with pulsating D.C. do not change in values, except for changing from a state of being fully on or fully off. It is as if someone is quickly turning a switch on and off, but there are no middle voltages, or negative voltages. On precision equipment, the on pulses usually appear as blocks called "square waves".
Why You Need To Know A Little Something About High Frequency Currents
You may be asking why would our readers need to know these things? That comes really soon, so be careful what you wish for. (Just kidding.) As I mentioned earlier, a new radiation threat is upon us all. In lieu of this, I must begin by emphasizing the 'radio' and 'radiant' roots for the word radiation. They ultimately are descriptions of the same phenomena: radiant energy in the form of electromagnetic waves of pulsating energy. So, how does the energy actually radiate itself outward? The truth is, we don't really understand that part.
Physicists have pulled their hair out for decades over that question. What we do know is that when things vibrate at a nuclear level or have electrical current changes, then these changes of state ― these frequencies ― cause energy to be radiated outward at the same frequencies. This is how radio transmissions work. Radio transmissions merely mix the audio (voice) signal with an exact frequency that listening radios are "tuned" for, and viola! Or as my past electronics teachers would have said, in their fancy-smancy engineering terms: "It will have imparted intelligence upon the carrier wave". A good analogy of how frequencies operate is remembering the ripples from a time when you dropped a pebble into a small creek or pond. You may recall that the ripples were reflected from the banks at exactly the same rate and distance as the original waves that struck them. The whole point of this paragraph is to make clear that the very basis of radiant energy transmissions and all types of radiation on the entire electromagnetic spectrum boil down to one thing: frequencies. Frequencies determine how far the energy travels, how well it penetrates, and how it effects things. The ultra high frequencies of gamma (ie. nuclear) radiation will quickly destroy a person through burns, cancer, or otherwise; while the low 60 Hz. of standard American power has little effect in typical exposure. Frequency determines if the energy is radio, microwave, infrared light, visible light, x-rays, gamma, or ultraviolet. There is real power in frequencies. No pun intended. As a general rule, the higher the frequency, the more dangerous the energy is. Nuclear radiation is at a really high frequency, for example.
For years, we have heard about how incandescent bulbs are bad for the environment. This made way for a whole new industry of "green" bulbs, marketed to the growing portion of people who seek to address environmental concerns.
However, they actually compromise people's health, and are ultimately more harmful to the environment.
Common Symptoms Resulting From Exposure To "Energy Efficient" Light Bulbs
Inability to concentrate
There are lots of theories regarding how these bulbs can cause these effects, but they are speculative. Very little research has been done. Despite this, European countries are phasing out incandescent bulbs, and forcing the public to switch to the "energy efficient" alternative.
The new light bulbs stunningly emit two forms of radiation outside of the light spectrum: ultraviolet and radio frequency; and would you believe the F.D.A. is involved? The F.D.A. states that in addition to visible light (U.V.A.), these bulbs also emit U.V.B., and infrared radiation; but let's not forget those radio transmissions! These bulbs are also said to have a flicker rate of 100-120 cycles per second, which seems low considering the U.V.B. light that they produce, and of course, those radio transmissions. In any case, even a flicker rate as low as 100 hertz is more than enough to trigger severe episodes of epileptic seizures. Video games are well known to do the same at a mere 60 Hz. Judging from the multiple bands of radiation released, the flicker rate can be expected to be well beyond 120 hertz (including the light that we can't actually see), so just start adding zeros to get the point about how likely they are to trigger epileptic seizures. These bulbs have negative effects on people with lupus too, which is something that has baffled everyone so far. That's still not all. They are known to damage the skin too, and did we mention high frequency radiation?
Watchdog organizations in the U.K. are clamoring about the issues mentioned above, and the fact that these bulbs also aggravate eczema and porphyria too.
Our staff has been doing this work long enough to spot the pattern. The radiation from these bulbs directly attacks the immune system, and furthermore damages the skin tissues enough to prevent the proper formation of vitamin D3. This will cause major cholesterol problems in time, and cripple the liver by preventing it from converting the cholesterol reserves inside the skin tissues (vitamin D2) into usable vitamin D3. This has the potential to cause or aggravate, not dozens, but hundreds of disease states. All that they had to do was shift the frequencies of otherwise benign light bulbs, and suddenly we have this mess. It is as if the whole mess with fluorescent light bulbs gave somebody inspiration for how to radiation poison us, while tricking us to beg for it, in order to "save the environment".
The Energy Efficient Scam
One of my first lessons while studying Electronics Engineering was that energy efficiency is effected more by heat than any other factor. That's why super conductors are always super cooled, and why your oven uses about 60 times more power than your television. Heat equals wasted power. That's written in stone.
Amazingly, standard light bulbs manage to be extremely energy efficient, despite the heat that they produce, and despite the fact that their light comes from heated elements. In fact, they manage to waste less than 10% of the power applied. This is because the heat resists the current flow in the wire coil ― to the point of practically cutting off the current. You see, heat also increases resistance. This breaking effect upon a bulb's current gives standard incandescent light bulbs their overall high efficiency. My first engineering project was testing light bulbs with high-end testing equipment, to study this rare property. I remember our teacher gleefully laughing at us as we sat befuddled by the fact that all of our calculations for voltages, currents, and power usage just did not add up. He thought it was almost hysterical when we began testing the equipment itself. The exercise was meant to be a memorable lesson about how heat may dissipate (or conserve) power in such a way that electrical devices at least appear to bend the rules of physics. Another important lesson was that while theoretically incandescent light bulbs ought to be wasteful of energy, they actually increase their own resistance via heat to the point that very little of their energy is wasted.
Take for example how long a standard flashlight will produce bright light with one or two small batteries. On the other hand, just try to power an oven with those same batteries for an exercise in futility. The whole thing was fascinating to the point that I knew this program of study was meant for me.
The new generation of bulbs is supposedly designed to save us from a problem that does not exist ― inefficient conventional bulbs, so this is where the story about them starts to reek like dead fish. The new bulbs, as you may have already noticed, do not produce a noticeable amount of heat. This is because the light from the new generation of bulbs is produced by injecting pulsating electricity (having a frequency) into a chemical gas to radiate light, as in radiation. Pay close attention to that frequency thing. By the types of radiation that the new bulbs emit, we know that they must operate at frequencies astronomically higher than the 120 hertz that they are said to, so somebody is certainly lying about them.
What's more is that technically, there is no reason for the higher frequencies to be used. If a lower frequency produces the needed visible light, then why do these bulbs operate at unnecessary higher frequency bands too? These extra frequencies simply could not have been stepped up and oscillated (frequency generated) higher by accident, regardless of whether the oscillation is chemical or electronic. Doing such a thing can make even an experienced engineer's head spin, due to the overall technical difficulties in frequency tuning; especially on the high-end. Furthermore, are we expected to believe that none of the companies or regulators involved ever bothered to test these new light bulbs with an oscilloscope during the testing? What else could an engineer test a new light device with? A sound meter? It's absolutely ludicrous to believe that they do not know. Thus, the only explanation is that these bulbs produce harmful radiation by design. They are designed to produce dangerous ionizing radiation outside of the range of visible light, which is known to be extremely harmful (ie. deadly) to humans, and it is all justified to solve an "environmental problem" that doesn't even exist.
The proof is already before you to observe at your leisure ― how they interfere with radios, cordless phones, and R.F. remote controls. Can you smell it too? This writer is practically gasping for air.
It Gets Even Worse. Seriously.
This may be showing my age to some, but I had never heard of 'dirty electricity' when I was in college. It sounds like the super power for a comic book super villain, and in a way, it actually is. Guess what it involves? If you guessed frequencies, then great job. For those of you with some electronics training, it is similar to the topic of harmonics, but the rest of you need not worry about this point. Here's the quick and dirty about 'dirty electricity'. The new age bulbs do not just directly radiate radiation from themselves, which alone would be plenty bad and a reason for infamy. Believe it or not, these bulbs actually inject frequencies back into the buildings' electrical supply lines. This means that every wire in the building is also producing radiation too, like a spider web of giant antennas, and at even higher frequencies. Is there any reader out there who still believes the radiation poisoning is unintentional? All I can say is God bless Dr. Magda Havas, of Trent University, who cataloged these findings with empirical data about the frequency ranges for both the radiation coming from the bulbs, and the 'dirty electricity' radiation that pulses throughout entire buildings. She is credited for creating the following table.
As you view the table below, just imagine if the new age bulbs had been using an equivalent power to that of the regular light bulbs that were being tested (60 watts instead of 15). It would be a fair comparison if both bulbs used the same power.
"The energy efficient compact fluorescent lights that are commercial available generate radio frequency radiation and ultraviolet radiation, they contain mercury - a known neurotoxin, and they are making some people ill. Instead of promoting these light bulbs governments around the world should be insisting that manufactures produces light bulbs that are electromagnetically clean and contain no toxic chemicals. Some of these are already available (CLED) but are too expensive for regular use. With a growing number of people developing electrohypersensitivity we have a serious emerging and newly identified health risk that is likely to get worse until regulations restricting our exposure to electromagnetic pollutants are enforced. Since everyone uses light bulbs and since the incandescent light bulbs are being phased out this is an area that requires immediate attention."
It's ironic that people buy these bulbs to help the environment, because they emit mercury vapor when they break. In fact, they're so toxic that you're not supposed to put them in your regular garbage. They're household hazardous waste. If you break one in the house, you are supposed to open all of your windows and doors, and evacuate the house for at least 15 minutes to minimize your exposure to the poisonous mercury gas. Don't forget that mercury is a bio-accumulative toxin, so it remains in your body forever in ever growing amounts.
Note - When discussing Dirty Electricity, we should recognize electrical specialist Dave Stetzer as the pioneer who brought this very serious health problem to public attention several years ago.
Interphone led to the first lawsuit in Israel: phone and cancer
A father of five filed a lawsuit a week ago after he heard of the interphone results.
He has agressive lymphoma, went through chemotherapy. During his calls he felt his ear was heating, afterwards the area near his ear was blown 2.5 years ago, and he was diagnosed with cancer. He has experts opinions, one of them is of oncologist prog Shmuel Ariad, who wrote that he had several causes together, and a causal relationship can be drawn between his lymphoma and the use of the phone.
Manager of oncology in the hospital Soroka in Beer Sheva prof Reuven Hod wrote that the cancer arrived on the after excess exposure from the mobile phone, to which he was exposed during two years before appearance of the disease. The suit claims that companies did not warn the public properly and that he tried several times to understand from them what the levels of the phone are and he did not receive an answer. Orange in reply said they would respond when they learn the suit, in court.
Today he was supposed to talk on the radio but at the last moment they brought an oncologist who ruled out the relationship - Dr. Noa Ben Baruch. She represents the chemical factories in another lawsuit filed by fishermen with cancer who say the chemical factories spilled their chemicals into the water and this was the reason for their cancer, so she spoke on the radio instead of the cancer patient. The cancer patient ordered a check of radiation and understood there is a problem with the radiation level from his phone, he is a lawyer and he filed the suit though lawyer Gideon Pener. It is not said in the article how many lawsuits were filed following the interphone.
----- Original Message -----
From: Iris Atzmon
To: Iris Atzmon
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 1:11 PM
Subject: תביעה על סרטן מסלולרי
"עו"ד מהדרום שחלה בסרטן באוזנו, הגיש לביהמ"ש תביעה נגד חברת פרטנר בטענה שהקרינה מהטלפון הסלולרי שברשותו היא שהובילה למצבו. לדבריו, החברה לא הזהירה אותו ואת הציבור מפני הסכנות הטמונות בשימוש ממושך בטלפון נייד ולא פיקחה על השיווק של המכשירים. פרטנר: 'כשיתקבל כתב התביעה נגיב' "
We know from research and experience that electromagnetic radiation (EMR) influences the well being of people both at home and at work. It is of great importance to understand the basics of EMR, to avoid the numerous harmful effects associated with it…
Aug 23-27, 2010 (8:30 AM - 4:30 PM)
Moccasin Lake Nature Park, Clearwater Florida
Classroom building amid fifty-one forested acres with a one mile nature trail
Are cellphone towers dangerous? Time will tell
It's a bit surprising to learn from Bill Boons, Vancouver's acting director of development, that nobody knows how many towers there are or where they are.
By Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun June 10, 2010
People love their cellphones and they want as many 'bars' as possible everywhere.
What few love are the base stations that sprout antennas and seem to be popping up everywhere. Some hate the visual pollution in cemeteries, parks and atop pristine mountains and churches, even when the telecom company puts a cross at the apex.
Others worry whether the radio frequency electro-magnetic fields (RF-EMF or radiation) that emanate from them are safe.
Jemima Stein is one of those.
Stein's condo is ground zero for leaks in her 12-storey Kerrisdale highrise. She hasn't been able to live in her apartment for nearly two years because of the mould and then the mess.
Now, just as she is getting ready to move back, Stein is "freaking out."
Her strata council is considering allowing a cellphone antenna on the roof in exchange for $12,000 a year in rent, which is tempting for leaky condo owners with unexpected bills.
From the bedroom window of Stein's ninth-storey apartment, Stein can see one about a block away. There's another on a building a few blocks in the other direction.
Even though she uses a cellphone, Stein is angrier and more anxious about the prospect of living under a cell tower than she ever was about the mould. At least, she says, leaks can be fixed.
"I'm asking for a city moratorium on towers in areas of condensed population," says Stein, who used to work for the BC Cancer Agency. She's read a number of studies about RFEMF and is convinced that any risk is too much.
But there is no known health risk and no reason for concern, says Patricia Daly, chief medical health officer for the Coastal Health Authority.
A recent BC Centre for Disease Control study of cellphone towers found that even the highest level of radiation was 3,000 times less than the lowest threshold level set by Health Canada.
Yet Stein's concern isn't unique. Recently, half a dozen people have e-mailed me about towers going up or proposed in their neighbourhoods.
Five years ago, the Vancouver school board banned towers within 305 metres of a school and the Surrey school board rejected putting one on school property -all because of parental concerns about their children's health.
A Google News search for cell towers and radiation yields hundreds of stories worldwide about residents questioning their safety.
Last week, Delhi's High Court ordered the city and telecom operators to form a committee of experts who could report back in three months on the risks.
In the United States, there are dozens of stories of frustrated residents being told to sit down when they raise the spectre of health risks at city hall. The U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996 prevents municipalities from using health risks as a reason for halting or preventing construction of a cellphone antenna.
In Canada, there's no such gag law. But it's difficult for residents to be heard. Industry Canada, which regulates the antennas, requires companies only to notify neighbours that a tower is going up.
Municipalities have to sign off on them, but there is no standardized process and many don't require any public input.
If Stein's strata council approves the tower, she won't have a chance to be heard at city hall. Vancouver's planning department routinely grants permits for towers on both commercial and residential highrises. The only time a permit is refused is if the tower exceeds zoning height restrictions or blocks protected views.
Still, it's a bit surprising to learn from Bill Boons, Vancouver's acting director of development, that nobody knows how many towers there are or where they are. In many smaller municipalities, councils vote on the permits. Port Coquitlam's council, for example, will soon decide whether to allow a base station in the city-owned cemetery where Terry Fox is buried and within about 200 metres of an elementary school. And there's growing opposition.
Like Stein, David Werthman isn't convinced it's safe.
Health Canada says there is an 'absence of evidence of harm,' but he notes that's entirely different than evidence of absence of harm.
Look at tobacco, asbestos, PCBs and DDT, he says. Once they were deemed safe, too.
Time will tell whether people's fears about RF-EMF are borne out. But meantime, life is about balancing risks and rewards.
Studies indicate cellphone users are exposed to way more radiation than anyone living under or near a tower. But there's no mass movement to ban cellphones.
And until there is, it seems we're stuck with the towers.
Letter to the Vancouver Sun
It is shocking that the City officials have no idea of the number of cell transmitters or their locations. One possible reason may be the reassurances of persons such as Patricia Daly, Chief medical health officer for the Coastal Health Authority. Based on many independent scientific studies done over the last 30 years, these reassurances are wrong and dangerous.
Ms. Daly should know that reports such as the BioInitiative Report, 2007 (www.bioinitiative.org) recommend that, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed studies, Canada's exposure limits are 10,000 times too high. She should know that many countries have standards 1000s of times more restrictive than Canada's -- even Russia's and China's.
Our health officials must become more educated on this topic and not allow their lack of awareness to result in dangerous exposures to what many scientists call the "cigarette of the 21st century. "
Web site www.weepinitiative.org
To sign up for WEEP News: email@example.com (provide name and e-mail address)
W.E.E.P. – The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution