Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News
10 August 2010
Huffman calls for health study on SmartMeters
Assemblyman Jared Huffman has called for an investigation into potential effects of SmartMeters that Pacific Gas and Electric Co. has begun installing at homes and businesses statewide.
Huffman, D-San Rafael, has asked the California Council on Science and Technology to evaluate health effects of the remote-controlled gas and electricity meters that eliminate the need for PG&E employees to walk the streets and read meters manually.
SmartMeters are already the subject of a study by the California Public Utilities Commission with regards to their accuracy.
Huffman, however, has requested that the state determine whether Federal Communications Commission standards for the radio frequency and electromagnetic fields generated by SmartMeters are sufficient to protect public health.
"I fully support the goal of using SmartMeter technology to help consumers become much more energy efficient and achieve substantial statewide energy savings," Huffman explained in a press release. "But this must be done right, and that means PG&E and the PUC must take seriously the concerns residents have been expressing and work to resolve legitimate questions."
In July, a parade of Marin residents worried about health implications of electronic emissions from the wireless devices embraced language offered by Marin County Supervisor Charles McGlashan that called for a state hearing on meter health issues. The county board then declared that the state should shut down the installation pending completion of a study indicating the meters produce accurate billing results and that a public hearing should be held on health and safety issues related to the meters.
The county board then asked the Public Utilities Commission to suspend the $2.2 billion meter installation program until a commission review about the meters' accuracy now under way is in hand.
Concerns about the health effects of SmartMeters also led the Fairfax Town Council to pass an ordinance Wednesday banning the installation of the devices within the town's borders for one year. The Marin Association of Realtors have also called for a moratorium on SmartMeter installation, as have the cities and towns of Cotati, Scotts Valley and Santa Cruz.
Contact Rob Rogers via e-mail at
Cell Phone Health Hazards: Better Safe Than Sorry
Ralph E. Stone Salem-News.com
"Science has shown increased risk of brain tumors from use of cellphones, as well as increased risk of eye cancer, salivary gland tumors, testicular cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and leukemia, The public must be informed." - August '09 report on cell phone hazards
(SAN FRANCISCO) - As of June 2009, there were an estimated 4.3 billion cell phone (mobile phones) users worldwide. In the United States, it is estimated that more than fifty percent of children own their own personal cell phones.
A growing body of scientific evidence shows that there are significant health hazards to their use, including brain tumors; damage to DNA, an undisputed cause of cancer; blood-brain barriers (BBB) leakage (BBB protects the brain from many molecules that are toxic to the brain; and male fertility damage by cell phone use because men, especially teenagers, put their cell phones in their pockets when not in use, causing a deleterious effect on sperm count and sperm motility.
On May 6, 2010, the President's Cancer Panel reported that "the true burden of environmentally induced cancers has been grossly underestimated" and named cell phones and other wireless technologies as potential causes of cancer that demand further research and precaution.
On June 15, 2010, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to require retailers to post in their stores notices on the level of radiation emitted by the cell phones they offer. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said he would sign the legislation once it reaches his desk. The proposed ordinance would not ban the sale of certain cell phones, but would require retailers to provide the "specific absorption rate" - a measurement of radiation registered with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) - next to phones displayed in their shops. Consumers also would be notified about where they can get more educational materials.
On June 30, 2010, U.S. Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) stated that he will introduce a bill for a federal research program on the affects of cell phone radiation on users. The bill will also call for a warning label on cell phones.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
The telecommunications industry helped write Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act), 47 U.S.C. § 332, Under the Act, communities have rights over the general placement, construction, and modification of cell phone towers, but cannot ban them altogether. Nor can they set zoning regulations based on "the environmental effects of radio-frequency emissions, to the extent that such facilities comply with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations concerning such emissions." It is still in dispute as to whether Section 704 covers the environmental (health) effects. It will ultimately be up to a federal court to decide whether a city or town can refuse a request to build a tower or other installation based on the health effects of radio-frequency (RF) emissions.
As of now, the FCC standards are based only on the thermal effects or the RF's ability to heat tissue, not on non-thermal effects. The FCC has neither the money, manpower nor inclination to properly monitor radiation output of tens of thousands of commercial wireless installations and admits that it does not have the ability to physical test radiation output.
A plaintiff seeking to challenge an industry member's non-thermal health hazards of a cell phone or cell phone tower faces a Catch 22 situation. All the industry member has to prove is that it complies with FCC regulations concerning thermal emissions. The FCC has no regulations concerning non-thermal emissions. As there is seemingly contradictory research on whether non-thermal emissions are hazardous to health, the courts so far have ruled for the industry.
However, an August 25, 2009 report, Cellphones and Brain Tumors: Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern. Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone (Report)
endorsed by more than 40 scientists and officials from 14 countries, found that:
studies that are independent of the telecom industry consistently show there is a "significant" risk for brain tumors from cell phone use; the electronicmagnetic field (EMF) exposure limits advocated by industry and used by governments are based on a false premise that a cell phone's EMF has no biological effects except for heating; and the danger of brain tumors from cell phone use is highest in children, and the younger a child is when he/she starts using a cell phone, the higher the risk.
The Report persuasively argues that if there is any inconsistency among the research, it is between industry-funded research with flawed design study protocols and independent research. The industry-funded research tends to underestimate the risk of brain tumors from cell phone use while the independent research tends to show a significant risk of brain tumors from cell phone use. In addition, the Report points out that there are thousands of studies showing biological effects -- non-thermal effects from EMF -- at exposures far below the thermal effects authorized by FCC regulations.
The Report further points out that Dr. George Carlo, leader of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association's (CTIA) $25 million research project found a statistically significant doubling of brain cancer risk.
In addition, independent studies conducted by Professor Lennart Hardell in Sweden found significant increased risk of brain tumors from ten or more years of cell phone use with the risk of brain cancer increasing by 5 percent; for every year of cell phone use the risk of brain cancer increases by 8 percent; after ten years or more years of digital cell phone use, there was a 280 percent increased risk of brain cancer; and for digital cell phone users who were teenagers or younger when they first started using cell phones, there was a 420 percent increased risk of cancer. This suggests that the two highest risks are ten or more years of cell phone use and the cell phone was held on the same side of the head where the tumor was diagnosed.
Finally, the telecommunications industry, on the one hand, disputes the non-thermal risk of cell phones, but yet, their user manuals warn customers to keep cell phone away from the body even when the cell phone is not in use. Are these industry members erring on the side of caution or are the warnings an implicit admission that a health hazard exists? For example, Nokia 1100 warns: "This product meets RF exposure guidelines . . . when positioned at least 1.5 cm (about 1 inch) away from the body . . . and should position the product at least 1.5 cm away from your body."
Similarly, Motorola V195 GSM manual warns to keep the mobile device 2.5 cm from the body. And the BlackBerry 8300 manual warns to keep the device at least 0.98 from the body and "should not be worn or carried on the body." But how many owners read their manuals? If the warnings were meant to be read, they should be on the device itself. And if these companies were truly concerned about safety, the device could be manufactured so it cannot be used closer than the "safe" limits.
Children's Use of Cell Phones
In April 2009, the European Parliament by a vote of 559 to 22 (8 abstentions) voted for a set of changes based on the health concerns associated with EMF.
Among the actions called for are a review of the scientific basis and adequacy of the EMF exposure limits, finance a wide ranging awareness campaign aimed at young people to minimize their exposure to cell phone radiation, to increase research funding, condemnation of marketing campaigns for the sale of cell phones designed solely for children, require labeling requirements on all wireless operated devices, and expressing concern that insurance companies are tending to exclude coverage for the risk of EMF liability insurance.
There have also been numerous governmental warnings about children's use of cell phones.
France is about to make it illegal to market cell phones to children and recently banned cell phones in elementary schools, is requiring manufacturers to develop a new kind of cell phone for children under eight, which would allow only the receipt and sending of text messages so the cell phone would not be placed at the side of the head. Russian officials have recommended that children under the age of 18 not use cell phones at all. Similarly, the United Kingdom, Israel, Belgium, Germany, and India have discouraged the use of cell phones by children.
Toronto's Department of Public Health has advised that children under eight should only use cell phones in emergencies and teenagers should limit calls to ten minutes.
The Report recommends a number of personal actions parents can take to reduce their children's exposure to cell phone radiation. Children should use a wired headset (not a wireless headset like Bluetooth), or use the speaker-phone mode, or only send text messages. The cell phone should be kept away from the body or use a belt holster designed to shield the body from cell phone radiation when not in use. Avoid cell phone use in a moving car, train, or bus, or in buildings -- particularly with steel structures -- as this will increase the power of the cell phone's radiation.
Keep the cell phone off until you want to see who called. Whenever possible, use a corded land-line phone instead of a wireless phone. Do not allow children under 18 to use a cell phone except in emergencies. I do not underestimate the difficulty parents will have in enforcing this last recommendation.
Shifting the Burden of Proof
Who should have the burden of proof on the health hazards of cell phones: the industry or the individual user? Assuming for argument's sake that the scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain, if there are reasonable scientific grounds for concern about the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health, the burden should shift to the industry. After all, a drug cannot be sold without proof that it is safe, nor can a food be launched without prior approval. Yet, we can use mobile telephony, including masts, and introduce WiFi and cell phones, without restrictions around our children, a double-standard gone insane.
The Report recommends the following:
* Ban marketing campaigns of cell phones designed solely for children.
* Require proof of liability insurance coverage for potential health risks associated with cell phones and similar wireless devices prior to their being offered for sale.
* Review the scientific basis and adequacy of the EMF exposure limits.
* Allocate research funding independent of industry funds and influence, to evaluate long-term effects from cell phones and other harmful effects from different sources of EMF, particularly where children are involved.
* Finance a wide-ranging awareness campaigns aimed at young people to minimize their exposures to cell phone radiation.
* Require warning labels on all wireless devices.
* Make available maps showing exposure to high-voltage power lines, radio frequency and microwaves from telecommunications cell towers, radio repeaters, and telephone antennas.
The following is a quote from L.Lloyd Morgan, the main editor of the Report:
"Exposure to cell phone radiation is the largest human health experiment ever undertaken, without informed consent, and has over 4 billion participants enrolled.
Science has shown increased risk of brain tumors from use of cellphones, as well as increased risk of eye cancer, salivary gland tumors, testicular cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and leukemia, The public must be informed." San Francisco's proposed legislation and Rep. Kucinich's proposed bill requiring retailers to post in their stores notices on the level of radiation emitted by the cell phones they offer is a modest beginning to warn the public about a serious health problem. It is better to be safe than sorry."
Finally, I highly recommend reading the Report; it is a sobering read.
Salem-News.com writer Ralph E. Stone was born in Massachusetts. He is a graduate of both Middlebury College and Suffolk Law School. We are very fortunate to have this writer's talents in this troubling world; Ralph has an eye for detail that others miss. As is the case with many Salem-News.com writers, Ralph is an American Veteran who served in war. Ralph served his nation after college as a U.S. Army officer during the Vietnam war. After Vietnam, he went on to have a career with the Federal Trade Commission as an Attorney specializing in Consumer and Antitrust Law. Over the years, Ralph has traveled extensively with his wife Judi, taking in data from all over the world, which today adds to his collective knowledge about extremely important subjects like the economy and taxation. You can send Ralph an email at this address email@example.com
Subject: Dr Klinghardt's Healing Retreat Is On
Dr Klinghardt's Healing Retreat Is On !... and it's just 2 weeks away, so this is your last chance to signup!
The imminent closure of klinghardt neurobiology has led to some concerns about availability of Dr Klinghardt's work both now and in the future. Please rest assured that the Klinghardt Academy remains his official resource and is here to stay. In the coming days and weeks, you will find new and updated information, powerpoint presentations, and his latest articles and protocols appearing on the Klinghardt Academy website. The first thing we would like to draw your attention to is his imminent healing retreat. This is a rare opportunity for the close,personal teaching and attention of Dr Klinghardt and his support staff. Please assist him in spreading the word that the retreat is going ahead as planned and help others by pointing them to
for his current and future teachings. Thank you.
Midsummer Healing Retreat on WhidbeyIsland, WA with Dr Dietrich Klinghardt MD, PhDAugust 22-28, 2010
This workshop/retreat is for practitioners wanting to take time out for their own healing and renewal. It is also time to learn Dr Klinghardt's healing strategies for the treatment of chronic Lyme disease and co-infections, autism, fatigue, metal toxicity and many other relevant issues.
Every participant will be offered a comprehensive health assessment using a review of medical and psychological symptoms, relevant labwork and imaging studies (such as the dental panorama x-ray), a physical examand ART testing.
There will also be deep systemic exploration of personal psychological and family issues - using mental field therapy(MFT), psychokinesiology (PK) and family constellation work. Dr Klinghardt will give short lectures on the most common yet often unrecognized medical and psychological issues and guide participants in their personal journey during this week. The supportive staff includes Katie Dahlgren ND, Michele Grindstaff ND, Jeff Harris ND, Sandy Radomski (specialist in energy psychology) and others. Around the sessions there will be time to enjoy the healing grounds and the magnificent nature around the retreat center. There will also be break-out sessions for experienced practitioners in the Klinghardt system of healing to refine theirskills in ART, MFT and PK. The mornings begin with a transformative breathing meditation.
Tuition fee: USD1,650.
To register please call Tiffany at 425 – 823 8818
or send an e-mail:
The Klinghardt Team
The Old Orchard, Tompsets Bank,
Forest Row, East Sussex, RH18 5BG, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1342 824906
Fax: +44 (0) 1342 824906
©2004-2008 Klinghardt Academy for the Healing Arts
Aug. 9 2010 -Will LTE Save Clearwire?
Posted by Andrew Seybold
For the past two years, I have been critical of Clearwire Corp's (CLWR) business model. I do not believe its current model can deliver profitability or even sustain the company.
My reasons are many and include the fact that Clearwire is using a wireless technology that is not mainstream (WiMAX) on a portion of spectrum that requires building out many more cell sites than its competitors, and that it has chosen to enter major metro markets already served by wired DSL, cable, and a number of wireless broadband companies.
Clearwire continues building and adding more cities to its network, but even with its second quarter results showing a record number of new customers (722,000), it serves less than 2 million customers spread out over a population base of 56 million. All of its competitors in these markets serve many millions of customers, and wireless operators still derive the majority of their income from voice services.
While Clearwire's data numbers are growing, it is voice that pays the bills, thus it cannot afford to build out its data systems without having to resort to outside funding. Clearwire is back to having to raise more money yet again.
Now Clearwire is discussing plans to trial LTE, the same wireless technology being rolled out by Verizon, AT&T and others in their new 700-MHz spectrum. While it is the same LTE, it is different in a few ways. First, it will have to be built in Clearwire's spectrum allocation in the 2.5-GHz band. This is both good news and bad news.
The bad news is that for every tower or cell site Verizon (VZ) or AT&T (T) has to build, Clearwire will have to build 4 or 5 to cover the same geographic area because it is in a higher portion of the spectrum, and at 2.5 GHz, it will not have the same advantage when it comes to inbuilding coverage.
The good news is that by building more sites, it will have more bandwidth available in a given area. Further, because it owns more spectrum and can build out more bandwidth at each cell site, Clearwire could have an advantage over time.
Another difference is that with the Clearwire flavor of LTE, the cell sites and devices will operate in a single block of spectrum. This is known as TDD or time-division duplex. The 700-MHz LTE systems will use two different portions of the spectrum for cell site transmissions and device transmissions. This is known as FDD or frequency division duplex. Both forms of LTE work, but chips and devices will be more plentiful for the 700-MHz FDD networks and many of the devices will be able to incorporate Verizon's and AT&T's existing systems.
The wireless industry will welcome Clearwire to the LTE world with open arms because the industry believes that a common radio standard across the globe will continue to drive down chip, device, and cell-site costs, and make it easier to roam around the world. This is not 100% true since LTE will be deployed in many different portions of the spectrum in many different areas, but because of the volumes involved, LTE devices should still cost less than today's WiMAX devices.
Most of Clearwire's radio vendors are already experimenting with LTE because of the low demand for WiMAX devices. In reality, the differences between WiMAX and LTE are not great and an experienced WiMAX supplier should have no trouble moving into the LTE world to support Clearwire. Clearwire also has established cell sites for its system and the cost of adding LTE to these sites should be reasonable.
One new wrinkle for Clearwire could be the increased cost associated with the Intellectual Property (IP) for the LTE technology. No one really knows how much this will cost, but it will apply to all LTE vendors. In any event, there will certainly be IP royalties involved and many companies are claiming they have IP invested in LTE.
Switching to LTE is a good move for Clearwire. I am sure this will help its subscriber growth, but I still question its business model going forward. The company is a long way from breakeven and I don't know how much more money it can raise. With WiMAX out of the picture, its support from Intel (INTC), which has spent billions of dollars trying to make WiMAX a success around the world, is in question. I still don't see a bright long-term prognosis for Clearwire. If Sprint and T-Mobile end up merging, perhaps Clearwire would become the LTE part of the new company. However, as a standalone business even being 51% owned by Sprint, I don't think switching to LTE will make enough of a difference.
To sign up for WEEP News: firstname.lastname@example.org (provide name and e-mail address)
W.E.E.P. – The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution