Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News
9 July 2011Dear **************
In your recent article, July 6, 2011 'Study downplaying cellphone risks by manufacturers', http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/06/study-downplaying-cellphone-risks-funded-by-manufacturers you reported that "The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection - composed of scientists from Britain, the United States and Sweden - said evidence is mounting against the hypothesis cell phones may cause cancer despite the findings of IARC." You further correctly reported that a conflict of interest was disclosed in that the funding to these scientists is courtesy of the telecommunications industry. Not only was there funding from telecommunications providers such as 'Telia Sonera', 'Ericsson AB', and 'Telenor', but the writers of this report also own shares in telecom companies such as 'Cable & Wireless Worldwide', 'Cable & Wireless Communications' and 'BT Group' (a global telecommunications services company).
"Anthony J. Swerdlow 1, Maria Feychting 2, Adele C Green 3, Leeka Kheifets 4, David A Savitz 5 (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Standing Committee on Epidemiology) 1 Section of Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK; 2 Karolinska Institutet, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden; 3 Cancer and Population Studies Unit, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Brisbane, Australia & School of Translational Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 4 Department of Epidemiology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles,USA; 5 Departments of Community Health and Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Brown University, Providence, USA. Correspondence to: Anthony Swerdlow, Section of Epidemiology,
Conflict of Interest Statement
Funding for research undertaken by MF [=Maria Feychting] and AJS [=Anthony J Swerdlow] has been provided by a number of sources, including the European Fifth Framework Program; the International Union against Cancer, which receives funds from the Mobile Manufacturers' Forum and the GSM Association; the Mobile Telecommunications Health and Research Programme; the Swedish Research Council; AFA Insurance; and VINNOVA (The Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems). VINNOVA received funds from Telia Sonera, Ericsson AB, and Telenor. All funds from commercial sources were via firewalls. The authors certify that their freedom to design, conduct, interpret, and publish research was not compromised by any controlling sponsor. AJS [=Anthony J Swerdlow] holds shares in the telecoms companies Cable & Wireless Worldwide and Cable and Wireless Communications. AJS' wife holds shares in the BT Group, a global telecommunications services company. MF [Maria Feychting], ACG, [Adele C Green] and AJS [Swerdlow] are members of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, an independent body setting guidelines for non-ionizing radiation protection. MF [=Maria Feychting] and AJS [=Anthony J Swerdlow] serve as advisors to a number of public advisory and research steering groups concerning the potential health effects of exposure to non-ionizing radiation."
I have a friend who slept with her cell phone (on vibrate) under her pillow for years when she was an on-call nurse so that incoming messages would not waken her husband at night. Unfortunately, she developed a brain tumour, which fortunately was operable. Tragically, her quality of life is forever changed, but she is hopeful that she will survive to see her son graduate from university.
Perhaps, it is the Insurance Industry and the Workman's Compensation Board then that should fund their own risk assessments on radio frequency radiation, because it will be them who in the end will pay out compensation for injury, disease, inability to continue working and even death. Or does the telecommunications industry have enough money to accept the liability for placing humanity at risk by continuing to refuse to accept the fact that their product has never, ever been proven safe? The recent findings of the WHO / IARC May 31, 2011 that radio frequency radiation as a 2B carcinogen, on the other hand were based on 100's of scientific articles and the public can have confidence in that.
The public has a right to know that Anthony Swerdlow and Maria Feychting et. al. have vested interests in the telecom industry and that they benefit monetarily with funding for their research from them as well. Their scientific 'opinion' can only have been unduly influenced by this fact and therefore their 'science' can not possibly have any credibility for the development of government policy for public safety when it comes qualifying the risk assessment of radio frequency radiation. And further, the most damning and most reprehensible omission of Swerdlow and Feychting is in the conclusion of their abstract as they have left our vulnerable, developing 'children' completely out of the equation: "Although there remains some uncertainty, the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumours in adults."
As a consequence of the Swerdlow/Feychting report attempting to disqualify the WHO / IARC classification of radio frequency radiation as a 2B carcinogen, School Boards world-wide will continue to irradiate children/teachers in their classrooms with WiFi and parents of young children will continue to believe that cell phones are safe. The least of our worries will be 'adult brain cancer'. The global community will be facing the possible extinction of the human species as the reproductive capabilities of little girls and little boys are bombarded with radiation in their classrooms for seven hours a day from Junior Kindergarten (age 3) to their University/College graduation (age 23). Or will we be weeping in the face of an unprecedented epidemic of 'juvenile brain cancer' as children/teens continue to cuddle up with their cell phones under their pillows lulled to sleep with music downloads or so that they can stay connected to their girl/boy friends 24/7, which is now so much a part of their young culture?
Cell phones must be labelled appropriately with a statement of risk just like cigarettes and WiFi must be removed from schools in favour of safe hard-wired internet connections ... either that or lawyers will be having a heyday asking, "Class action suite anyone?"
Our children are our future.
Janice
Scarborough Leader (blog)
s wireless smart meter initiative. Now, after a recent ruling by the Public Utilities Commission that allows residents to opt out of the program, they're taking their message on the road. The women gathered at town hall June 29 for a question and ...
Dear Dr. Kendall,
I kindly ask you from where you get that position of yours. Please refer me to the studies!
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp
6. Cited out of the link below is a comment by Rafe Mair about the precautionary principle.
Here is the principle as generally stated. "The precautionary principle …states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action."
This is what this means to British Columbians – the Precautionary Principle prevails, or rather should prevail, in the following cases: Fish farming, power projects, [ smart meters…added by H. Karow ] threats to the atmosphere, pipelines and tanker traffic. It also should apply, in my opinion, to highway and bridge construction.
In fact, in each of the above cases the onus has rested not on the potential despoiler but on the general public. This turnabout provides the despoiler with a one line defence which runs, "You don't really believe that crap do you?" That becomes an effective reply to the strongest scientific argument – it's really a thinly disguised "Big Lie" technique.
Looking forward to your response at your earliest convenience, please!
Hans Karow
Coalition to Reduce Electropollution (CORE)
Lake Country, BC
ITworld.com
You could tune a receiver to pull in the signal, but carriers encrypt cell phone traffic using their own algorithms, so cracking the encryption to unencrypt the traffic and find the IMEI sent by the phone when it first connects to tower is possible. ...
http://www.itworld.com/security/181313/how-hack-cell-phone-voice-mail-better-news-world
The human body can be used as an antenna
But opponents of smart meters say it is unwise to wait for science to catch up with the health risks associated with electromagnetic radiation, ...
http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2011/07/02/news/doc4e0fa7bc7e0cd988762800.txt
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