W.E.E.P. News
Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News
8 October 2010
TV Coverage of Cellular Telephone and Internet Association Demonstration
Bay Area TV station KTVU Channel 2 carried the following report yesterday on the events around the CTIA cell phone demonstration:
http://www.ktvu.com/news/25310657/detail.html
Sent by:
Elizabeth Kelley
Electromagnetic Safety Alliance, Inc.
Tucson, Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See this web page -
http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/issues/nature.php
before reading the article below.
Why is it that frogs, birds, bats butterflies and other living things have died in much greater numbers since microwave radiation became widely use for cell phones and other communications systems?
Why are environmental organizations failing to read and understand all the research which shows that exposure to microwave radiation is causing serious biological effects to living things?
Martin
----------------------------
Killer frog virus sweeps Britain wiping out hundreds of thousands of amphibians
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 4:50 PM on 7th October 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1318548/Frog-numbers-plummet-80-virus-decimates-adult-population.html
Common frog populations have seen numbers tumble by more than 80 per cent in the face of a virus spreading through the UK, scientists warned today.
Populations infected with the disease Ranavirus, which is thought to be relatively new to the UK, suffered an average 81 per cent decrease in adult frogs over a 12-year period.
Using data collected from the public by the frog mortality project and charity Froglife, the research from the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) showed long-term declines in numbers in the face of the virus.
Disease: Common frog populations have seen numbers tumble by more than 80 per cent in the face of a virus spreading through the UK
The study also found sudden mass die-offs of frogs, which the disease is known to cause.
But the research, which was published in the ZSL journal Animal Conservation, found that while some populations of frogs suffered from infection year-on-year, others bounced back from mass mortality events.
The research suggests some frogs may be immune to infection by the virus, the scientists said.
Dr Amber Teacher, lead author of the study from ZSL, said: 'Our findings show that Ranavirus not only causes one-off mass mortality events, but it is also responsible for long-term population declines.
'We need to understand more about this virus if we are to minimise the serious threat that it poses to our native amphibians.'
The origins of non-native disease, which causes a range of symptoms in common frogs including skin ulceration and haemorrhaging of internal organs, are unknown but is thought to be relatively new to the UK and is closely related to viruses found in North American amphibians.
Common frog populations around the UK have seen numbers tumble by more than four-fifths in the face of a virus spreading through the country
In the 1980s and 1990s, the disease was associated with the south-east of England but in recent years new pockets of virus have turned up in Lancashire, Yorkshire and along the south coast.
The study's co-author Dr Trent Garner, from ZSL, said: 'It is very difficult to treat wildlife diseases and so the mystery that we desperately need to solve is how the disease spreads.
'Understanding more about the ecology of the disease will allow us to offer advice to the public on how to limit the spread of infection, which could also prevent the movement of other frog diseases in the future.'
Lucy Benyon, of Froglife, said the discovery of populations which seemed to have some form of immunity to the virus was good news.
She said: 'The discovery of persistent populations in the face of disease emergence is very encouraging and offers hope for the long-term future of this species.
'However, we still need regular information from the public on what is happening in their ponds to continue this essential research.'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAR ratings
Surprisingly I would agree with the FCC. I have long thought that peak SAR was a rather misleading "red herring".
Some of the lowest peak-SAR phones actually have a higher total SAR into brain tissue than the much higher peak-SAR handsets - it is just spread out a lot more through the brain tissue. Generally low SAR phones are less efficient at getting their signals out to the base station and so regularly work at a much high transmit power to compensate. Peak-SAR (the thing used for SAR rating) is just the highest value recorded for any 1 g of brain tissue (USA) and 10 g (Europe). It does not represent in any way the total SAR into the user's brain.
Handsets have a power-control range of over 1000-fold in the power they transmit - they are told what power they need to transmit at by the basestation during the start of the phone call when the handset works at full power for the measurement to take place. Efficient handsets then turn their power down by often over 100-fold!
So SAR ratings are not really the issue and I think the FCC change is an appropriate one.
Choosing a low peak-SAR handset was really a diversionary exercise by the thermal effects only brigade, in my opinion. It missed the point of non-thermal concerns completely. If the problem of brain cancer or other effects turn out to be non-thermal effects, then all handsets have a problem and choosing a low SAR handset will not help and might, in fact, be worse.
Best regards
Alasdair Philips
Powerwatch
I fully agree with Alasdair that the SAR is a misleading red herring - my opinion is based on Robert Kane's book.
Alasdair Philips adds even more reasons to doubt the SAR. I think the FCC is objectively right but from the wrong reasons. Their interest looks more of the industry (plus the first picture of the gallery of the Washington's Post article showed something too..) than really checking into what's right and wrong with the SAR otherwise they would recommend the public to measure power density. The SAR keeps the industry in control because only the industry (or researchers) can measure it in the lab while the public is not aware of the option to measure power density independently.
Iris
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meeting to warn over wi-fi risks (From Swindon Advertiser)
"If you have wi-fi in your home that is a risk you are taking for your family and if ... to wi-fi adversely effects the health of the general population. ...
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/8436282.Meeting_to_warn_over_wi_fi_risks/
Web site www.weepinitiative.org e-mail contactweep@weepinitiative.org
To sign up for WEEP News: newssignup@weepinitiative.org (provide name and e-mail address)
W.E.E.P. – The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution
