State Rep. Andrea Boland introduced the Children's Wireless Protection Act last winter, which would have placed warning labels on cell phones. Experts from around the world testified in favor of Boland's bill, including Dr. Devra Davis, the author of "Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done To Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family." Scientists, doctors, and nurses were all supporters for the bill.
On June 15, San Francisco passed a right-to-know ordinance, making it the first city in the nation to require cell phone radiation disclosure at the point of sale. On June 30, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich announced his intent to introduce a bill requiring warning labels on cell phones.
After being diagnosed with a brain tumor, I learned that cell phone manuals come with warnings that are being buried in fine print, which nobody reads. I sure didn't. I was shocked to learn that the manual of the BlackBerry Torch warns "Keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.98 inches from your body, including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers."
I am happy to announce that Portland's mayor, Nicholas Mavodones Jr., has declared October as Cell Phone Awareness Month. To learn more information about safer cell phone use go to Campaign For Safer Cell Phones on the Web. Please protect the brain of you and your family.
Bumblebees are important pollinators of wild plants and agricultural crops around the world. Photograph: RSPB/PA
The abundance of four common species of bumblebees in the US has dropped by 96% in just the past few decades, according to the most comprehensive national census of the insects. Scientists said the alarming decline, which could have devastating implications for the pollination of both wild and farmed plants, was likely to be a result of disease and inbreeding.
Bumble bees are important pollinators of wild plants and agricultural crops around the world including tomatoes and berries thanks to their large body size, long tongues, and high-frequency buzzing, which helps release pollen from flowers.
Bees in general pollinate some 90% of the world's commercial plants, including most fruits, vegetables and nuts. Coffee, soya beans and cotton are all dependent on pollination by bees to increase yields. It is the start of a food chain that also sustains wild birds and animals.
But the insects, along with other crucial pollinators such as moths and hoverflies, have been in serious decline around the world since the last few decades of the 20th century. It is unclear why, but scientists think it is from a combination of new diseases, changing habitats around cities, and increasing use of pesticides.
Sydney Cameron, an entomologist at the University of Illinois, led a team on a three-year study of the changing distribution, genetic diversity and pathogens in eight species of bumblebees in the US.
By comparing his results with those in museum records of bee populations, he showed that the relative abundance of four of the sampled species (Bombus occidentalis, B pensylvanicus, B affinis and B terricola) had declined by up to 96% and that their geographic ranges had contracted by 23% to 87%, some within just the past two decades.
Cameron's findings reflect similar studies across the world. According to the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in the UK, three of the 25 British species of bumblebees are already extinct and half of the remainder have shown serious declines, often up to 70%, since around the 1970s. Last year, scientists inaugurated a £10m programme, called the Insect Pollinators Initiative, to look at the reasons behind the devastation in the insect population.
Cameron's team also showed that declining species of bees had higher infection levels of a pathogen called Nosema bombi and lower genetic diversity compared with the four species of bees that were not in decline – B bifarius, B vosnesenskii, B impatiens and B bimaculatus.
The N bombi pathogen is commonly found in bumblebees throughout Europe but until now has been largely unstudied in north America. The infection reduces the lifespans of individual bees and also results in smaller colony sizes.
The reduction in genetic diversity seen in the declining bees means that they are less able to fight off any new pathogens or resist pollution or predators. "Higher pathogen prevalence and reduced genetic diversity are, thus, realistic predictors of these alarming patterns of decline in north America, although cause and effect remain uncertain," Cameron wrote today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Insects such as bees, moths and hoverflies pollinate around a third of the agricultural crops grown worldwide. If all of the UK's insect pollinators were wiped out, the drop in crop production would cost the UK economy up to £440m a year, equivalent to around 13% of the UK's income from farming.
The collapse in the global bee population is a major threat to crops.
It is estimated that a third of everything we eat depends upon pollination by bees, which means they contribute some £26bn to the global economy. Other identified causes of bee decline include parasites such as the bloodsucking varroa mite and viral and bacterial infections, pesticides and poor nutrition stemming from intensive farming methods.
"Pollinator decline has become a worldwide issue, raising increasing concerns over impacts on global food production, stability of pollination services, and disruption of plant-pollinator networks," wrote Cameron. "In accordance with the goals of the United Nations convention on biological diversity to reduce the rate of species loss by 2010, such efforts to elucidate the causes and ecological impacts of bumble bee decline, in co-ordination with informed conservation strategies, will go a long way to mitigating further losses."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Head and neck cancers in young women
This story mentions cell death, but maybe it should be mentioning cell-phone? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12098317
At this meeting, concerned parents learned that the claims made for the safety of wireless Internet technology are unproven. We learned that children with electromagnet hypersensitivity are getting sick in WiFi equipped schools, that prolonged radio frequency exposure is potentially injurious to human growth in the early years of development and of a fetus in utero, and we learned that the electromagnet field (EMF) surrounding each student working at banks of wireless computers exceeds what is currently deemed to be safe and poses a serious health risk.
I am certain that the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board wants only the most progressive and safest environment for our students. They would not want to implement any technology that would in any way risk student health. At present there is not conclusive medical proof that putting children in an environment of industrial strength EMFs for six to eight hours a day is harmful. There is no proof that it is not. We won't know this for at least 10 or more years. We do have evidence that it is harmful. Sensitive children, who during the school year develop unexplained headaches, increased heart rate, fatigue, and dizziness suddenly improve when removed from a WiFi school.
There is no doubt the school board is under pressure to adopt wireless technology. The board doesn't want to be left standing at the station as the high tech train streaks by. The high tech lobby is one of the most powerful lobby groups in industry today. Kids are a huge market with the possibility of a laptop in every backpack, an ear-bud in every ear. Why do we have to buy into this powerful marketing scheme? First they will sell us routers (transmitters), then the supporting software and maintenance. We already have high-speed fibre optic cable in our schools. As it is, kids can get on the Internet as much as they want. The World Wide Web is essential for learning and communication; the important point is that schools should be islands of safety from the WiFi electromagnetic radiation that is virtually everywhere
Why is it that Switzerland, France and Germany are advising against WiFi or actively removing wireless technology from their schools? We have to find out why. We need a moratorium on the installation of WiFi until we have all the answers.
If in the next decade, the research shows it is harmful, then KPRDSB's decision to not install WiFi will confirm the strong leadership role our school board has taken in resisting this powerful, persuasive lobby group. We will have protected our young children. Being left standing at the station as the WiFi train streaks by may just be the wisest (and safest) place to be.
Lucille Strath is a high-speed wireless user, a mother, grandmother and former Trent University teacher who is deeply concerned about the health of young children.
Scientists call it the Beepocalyspe. (OK, not scientists, but I like to call it that.) In late 2006, whole hives of honey bees began dying overnight for reasons that are still unclear. Scientists called it colony-collapse disorder (CCD), and it's as scary as it is mysterious. Adult bees simply leave the hive, ostensibly in search of pollen, only to die somewhere in the open. Reported death rates in bee colonies in the U.S. were 29% in 2009 and rose to 34% in 2010. (Data from the Department of Agriculture's CCD Progress Report—download a PDF here.) It's still unclear what's behind CCD—recent studies have suggested that it might be due to a combination of viral and fungal infections—but there's no doubt about the impact that sustained bee loss would have on the agricultural sector. About 130 crops in the U.S.—worth some $15 billion a year—depend on pollination from the honeybee alone in the U.S., and it's scary to think what might happen to the world food supply if CCD can't be curbed.
Get ready for more bad news—it's not just the honeybees that are disappearing. North American bumble bees have been steadily dwindling, vanishing from their long-established habitat. Bumble bees aren't as well-known as honeybees, but they're important pollinators as well, especially for tomatoes and berries. While there have been anecdotal reports from beekeepers and other observers about population declines for bumblebees, however there hasn't been the same concerted effort to track bumble bees. But a new paper published in the January 3 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) contains the results of a multiyear study of bumble bee populations, and the numbers are sobering. According to the study, written by a team of scientists including entomologist Sydney Cameron of the University of Illinois, the relative abundance of four species of bumble bees over the past few decades has dropped by more than 90%—and those disappearing species are also suffering from low genetic diversity, which makes them that much more susceptible to disease or any other environmental pressures. (Download a PDF of the paper here.)
As with CCD, it's not clear why bumble bee populations seem to be declining. Cameron and her colleagues note the possible role of a parasite called Nosema bombi that commonly found in Europe but which hasn't been fully studied among North American bumble bees. It's not a smoking gun, but the PNAS paper found that declining populations of bumble bee species were associated with high levels of parasite infection, while stable species were less likely to show frequent infection. Still, the authors write that the parasite could simply be more common in species that are declining—correlative, rather than causative.
Indeed, while studies like this one can help us get a grip on the problem of declining species, it's still not clear what's causing it—which makes the vanishing that much more eerie. On a day when authorities are trying to figure out why thousands of birds fell from the sky and thousands of fish died in the rivers in Arkansas, the bee study is a reminder of all the ways we may be impacting the natural world for the worse—without even knowing it.
This Report is prepared in support of open discussion on radiofrequency microwave radiation levels (RF radiation levels) that are produced by wireless electric meters (i.e., smart meters) in California. There has been virtually no information made available to the public, nor to decision-makers on RF radiation levels. Significant unanswered questions still exist about what levels of radiofrequency microwave radiation will be produced by these meters.
This question has very important consequences for public health and welfare, because the public may be subjected to exposures at levels that either violate federal safety limits, or face chronic exposure levels that have already been associated with adverse health impacts, or both.
This Report uses computer modeling to predict power density levels that may be present where smart meters are in operation. The methodology used in this assessment is consistent with FCC OET 65 equations for prediction of RF power density levels. Many scenarios are modeled, to bracket the range of reasonably predictable RF exposures in typical living conditions. Many variables must be considered (installation very close to occupied space, how many meters are installed on a single wall, how frequently they will transmit an RF pulse, how powerful the RF radiation pulses will be, how far inside a home they will penetrate and at what intensities, how much 'piggybacking' of RF signals will occur from neighboring wireless meters, reflections that may increase RF levels, and what amount of RF wireless exposure may already be present beforehand, etc.)
To date, California's electric utilities have told the California Public Utilities Commission only that they will comply with applicable federal safety limits. However, there are substantial discrepancies in what the FCC compliance testing says is needed for wireless meters to comply with their safety limits, and the manner in which many meters are being installed and are operating.
People may use this assessment to further their knowledge about wireless meters, using the tables that predict RF radiation levels, the tables that highlight potential violations of safety limits, and the health study-related tables showing RF radiation levels reported to pose health impacts. Although the authors expect there will be differences of opinion about the content of this report, we believe it will provide a basis for more educated decision-making and full disclosure of impacts.
The Report is not intended to be a substitute for disclosure of RF radiation levels by the CPUC and the electric utilities it regulates. They are responsible to the public to provide reliable and comprehensive information on impacts from wireless meters.
After many years of debate over the health hazards posed by mobile phones, a recent report finally establishes it.
The exhaustive report has been submitted recently to the Department of Telecom by Prof Girish Kumar of IIT-Bombay's department of electrical engineering.
Kumar, who has done extensive research on cell phone radiation and its effects warns against excessive use of cell phones as they put users, to increased risk of cancer, brain tumour and many other health hazards. More so in case of children.
The major health hazards of radiation from cell phones and cell towers are as given below: _A 400% increase in the risk of brain cancer among for teenagers using cell phones. Children are more vulnerable to cell phone radiation. The younger the child, the deeper is the penetration of electromagnetic radiation as children's skulls are thinner. _Excessive use of mobile phones can also cause cancer in anyone. Use of cell phones for more than 30 minutes per day for 10 years increases the risk of brain cancer and acoustic neuroma. _Cell phone radiation causes irreversible damage to male fertility. Studies have found 30% lower sperm count in intensive users of mobile phones. _Cell phone frequencies can cause damage to the DNA of the body's cells. Radiation causes 'free radical formation' inside the body's cells; the free radicals are known to be carcinogenic. _Cell phone frequencies interfere with the functioning of other life-saving gadgets, including implanted pace-makers, and may, therefore, cause sudden death. _Mobile phone exposure can activate the stress response in human and animal cells which causes production of stress proteins. This is proof enough that the body recognises radiations from cell phones as potentially harmful. _Electromagnetic fields caused by cell phone and cell tower radiation degrade the immune system and stimulate allergic\inflammatory responses, including rashes, sores, biting sensations and lesions. _People using cell phones for more than 30 minutes a day for more than four years are at a higher risk of hearing loss. Cell phone radiation can cause tinnitus and damage the auditory hair cells present in the inner ear. Once damaged, these cells can never regenerate. _Frequent use of mobile phones can also damage the visual system in many ways. Cell phone frequencies (900, 1800 MHz and 2450 MHz) damage epithelial cells and increase the temperature within the eye. _Cell phone emissions weaken bones and can cause reduction in melatonin (a type of antioxidant which is immune system enhancer) levels. _An increased risk of salivary gland cancer is linked to the use of mobile phones. _Exposure to electromagnetic fields can cause sleep disorders and neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. _Due to consistent electromagnetic background noise, bees and birds become disoriented and cannot return to their hives and nests. It has adverse effects on animals, plants and the environment
December 2010 - Science Update
The following is a quick summary of another twenty papers that have come out over the last few months related to effects of electromagnetic radiation. Some of the papers are notable papers that have been published very recently, others are papers that were published a few months ago that have not yet made it to one of the Science Updates Click here for the full news story http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20101227-science-update.asp
To All - If anyone needs "motivation" re the need to inform re "preventable health problems in 2011," the tragic story of infant, Molly, and what her entire family must endure for at least one year, is "powerful!"
While Molly's blog does not, of course, mention likely close electric field exposure(s) as "causal," we do know cancer does not take decades to develop, that major cause of Leukemia is radiation, and that known blood changes re close electric field exposures and ionizing radiation treatments, etc., are "identical" and "pre-Leukemic!" See my website: http://www.guineapigsrus.org/ ........
Best wishes for 2011 and take care! Joanne
Stephanie RinkMolly is 1 month old and was diagnosed with Leukemia on Christmas eve. Please show your support by going to www.molly-campbell.com and if you can help the family with a donation, im sure they would be forever greatful.
I made my profile picture for Molly aswell, to help raise awareness about this precious baby, please save the picture and make it your own profile picture to help Molly and her family. Together we can help Molly be heard.
This is so sad.
Infant leukemia (<12 months) is almost universally believed to be initiated at conception or in-utero. It is likely to have been some sort of damage to the father's sperm, or exposure to Rebekah during pregnancy or probably just one of those perchance genetic errors than can happen everytime we create new life. In my opinion it is almost certainly nothing to do with Molly's environment in the 28 days after birth.
Such cases do raise very difficult ethical issues. They have a devastatingly disruptive effect on the life of the family. Early remission of symptoms is common and things look hopeful but, unlike ALL cases diagnosed later, say at 2 - 5 years old, where the 5-year survival rate is now for cALL is now around 90%, it is still only about an overall 33% 5-year rate for children diagnosed with ALL under 1 year in age, much lower for some variants of leukemia. They often relapse or develop other leukemias or cancers. Many, if they survive, end up infertile or with other long-term problems.
I see the Molly website states: "However, Molly's leukemia has the genetic markers of a much more difficult leukemia to treat." With modern genetic testing techniques it is becoming possible to grade the likelihood of an eventual 5 year plus disease-free survival period. When that is likely to be less than, say, a 10% chance, the question "to treat or not to treat" should be asked.
What is the fairest way forward for Molly, especially for her siblings and, in the long-term, her parents? Doctors must be very honest with such parents and the parents need to pray to their God and carefully consider the lives of their other children.
I am lucky that I have never been placed in such a position. I raise this difficult issue as with modern healthcare and genetic and other analysis techniques long-term prognoses are becoming far more accurate. Of course Molly matters - but so do all the members of her family - each just as much as each other.
Text less -- Texting and cell phone use is becoming an addiction for many young people. According to a study done by Case Western Reserve School of Medicine in Cleveland of 4,257 secondary school students, almost one in five teens sent more than 120 texts a day.
When it comes to microwave ovens, the price for convenience is to compromise your health. In this article, I will review what we know about the effects microwaves on your food and on your body. ....
http://www.blogger.com/ http://www.blogger.com/ http://www.blogger.com/ http://www.blogger.com/ http://www.blogger.com/ http://www.blogger.com/ http://www.blogger.com/ http://www.blogger.com/
________________________________________________________________________
Note: EMF-Omega News belongs to the Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated
society), Umbrella Organization of the Citizens and Initiatives for the
Protection against Electrosmog.
Editor and responsible for the content: Citizens' Initiative Omega,
member in the Buergerwelle. Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated society),
which works on non-profit base. Our messages are the result of many
hours of daily research, roundup and editing. If you would like to
support our activity for people around the world with a donation or an
aid fund unique or on regular base, you can do it: Recipient:
Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated society), bank-connection: Hypo Bank
Augsburg, account-No 2250284, BLZ 720 200 70, IBAN: DE83 7202 0070 0002
2502 84, SWIFT (BIC): HYVEDEMM408.
Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated society), Umbrella Organization of
the Citizens and Initiatives for the Protection against Electrosmog: 1.
Chairman Siegfried Zwerenz, 2. Chairman Barbara Eidling, Mailing
address: Lindenweg 10, D-95643 Tirschenreuth, phone 0049-(0)9631-795736,
fax 0049-(0)9631-795734, e-mail http://www.blogger.com/, Internet http://www.blogger.com/ . Thank you.
If you have information which you would like to share with your friends
and colleges around the world and which are from common interest, please
send us this information, we will send them out.
Disclaimer:
The information in our EMF-Omega-News are derived from sources, which we
believe to be accurate but this cannot be guaranteed.
We are not responsible for any errors or omissions and disclaims any
liability incurred as a consequence of any of the contents of this
resources.
Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News
1January2011
BEST WISHES FOR THE NEW YEAR
UW Scientist Henry Lai Makes Waves in the Cell Phone Industry
UW scientist Dr. Henry Lai never set out to link cell phones to cancer, but his work—and efforts to discredit him—suggest that he was on to something. Ironically, with funding for independent research virtually nonexistent, we may never know for sure.
NAOMI ISHISAKA | JANUARY 2011 | FROM THE PRINT EDITION
A greeting card on bioengineering professor Henry Lai's office wall at the University of Washington contains this quotation from Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
This philosophy could well sum up Lai's work on the effects of low-level radiation on DNA, as well as what he believes should be the guiding principle of science: independent investigation and research leading to discovery for the public good. Yet the soft-spoken scientist's steadfast belief in that principle has placed his research at the center of a persistent global controversy and created powerful enemies that tried to get him fired and essentially succeeded in drying up the source of funding for the type of research he was doing.
Lai admits that he was naive. He came to the UW in 1972 and earned a doctorate in psychology. Two decades later, as a bioengineering researcher, he studied esoteric scientific topics in relative obscurity. He and a fellow researcher, Narendra "N.P." Singh, were looking at the effects of nonionizing microwave radiation—the same type of radiation emitted by cell phones—on the DNA of rats. They used a level of radiation considered safe by government standards and found that the DNA in the brain cells of the rats was damaged—or broken—by exposure to the radiation. Ironically, cell phones weren't even on Lai's mind when he performed the initial studies. Funded initially by the Office of Naval Research, Lai was investigating how radar, which emits radio-frequency radiation, affects the health of operators. "We did not really pay attention to the importance of this thing," he recalls. But during his research, cell phone giant Motorola Inc. indicated that someone had told the company about Lai's unpublished results. Motorola asked to meet with him in his lab and at a meeting in Copenhagen.
After Lai and Singh's research finding an effect on DNA was published in 1995, Lai learned of a full-scale effort to discredit his work. In an internal company memo leaked to Microwave News, a publication that examines health and environmental effects of electromagnetic radiation, Motorola described its plan to "war-game" and undermine Lai's research. After initially accepting industry funding for continued research from the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program (created to manage $25 million in research funds), Lai and Singh wrote an open letter to Microwave News questioning restrictions placed on their research by the funders. After that, the head of WTR sent a memo asking then-UW president Richard McCormick to fire Lai and Singh. McCormick refused, but the dustup sent a clear message to Lai and his colleagues.
"This shocked me," Lai says, "the letter trying to discredit me, the 'war games' memo. As a scientist doing research, I was not expecting to be involved in a political situation. It opened my eyes on how games are played in the world of business."
Thus was launched an epic battle over research and truth. If Lai and Singh were correct about the potential impact on brain cells from radio-frequency radiation, there could be billions of dollars on the line for the cell phone industry in potential liability, leading to significant design changes and lost market expansion.
To the layperson, the science behind Lai's work, which was largely funded by the National Institutes of Health, and industry-funded research to contradict it is mind-numbingly complex. Virtually every assertion of risk has a counterassertion of no risk. For every independent study showing damage to DNA and memory, there is a study showing the opposite.
Lai, 61, says this phenomenon could be a direct result of the way science is now funded around the world. "[The U.S. was on] the cutting edge of this whole area for the last 30 years. [But] right now, we're the Third World country. We're not doing research at all," Lai says. With government funding all but nonexistent, the bulk of scientific research is funded by private industry. "The mechanism is funding," Lai says. "You don't bite the hand that feeds you. The pressure is very impressive."
The massive Interphone study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and released in May 2010, exemplifies these challenges.
Purported to be the definitive word on cell phone radiation and brain tumors, Interphone involved 13 countries (all outside the U.S.), $25 million, and thousands of tumor patients and controls. Conducted over 10 years, the widely anticipated study was supposed to at last provide clarity on the risks of cell phone use. Yet, once again, the science was divided. The day after the study's release, headlines read, "No answer, just fuzz, from cell phone study," and, "One conclusion emerges from Interphone study: Controversy will continue."
Why, after so much money and time, were the data so mixed? Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, says there were a number of problems with Interphone. "When we started interviewing the protagonists," he says, "we realized there was a lot of conflict going on. It was a bitter struggle. It tells you the interpretation of the data is not clear cut in any way."
For the purposes of the Interphone study, a person who used a cell phone 30 minutes a day for more than 10 years was considered to be subjected to heavy exposure. Today, that level of cell phone use (900 minutes a month) is average. The people defined as the most heavily exposed in the Interphone study now represent the average user.
To illustrate that point, Elisabeth Cardis, head of the Interphone study, was quoted as saying, "In my personal opinion, I think we have a number of elements that suggest a possible increased risk among the heaviest users, and because the heaviest users in our study are considered the low users today, I think that's something of concern. Until stronger conclusions can be drawn one way or another, it may be reasonable to reduce one's exposure."
Lai's frustration with the increasing body of contradictory research led him to do an analysis in 2006 of the available studies on cell phone radiation between 1990 and 2006, and where their funding came from. What he found was that 50 percent of the 326 studies showed a biological effect from radio-frequency radiation and 50 percent did not. But when he filtered the studies into two stacks—those funded by the wireless industry and those funded independently—Lai discovered industry-funded studies were 30 percent likely to find an effect, as opposed to 70 percent of the independent studies.
Lai says that, while his findings highlight the crucial role industry funding plays in scientific research, the 50-50 split alone should be cause for concern. "Even if you accept all the industry studies, you still end up with 50-50," he says. "How could 50 percent all be garbage? People always start with the statement 'Hundreds of studies have been done on this topic, and no effect has been found,' but this is a very misleading statement. [The statements] come out from the cell phone industry, and people just use it, like the American Cancer Society. People haven't even gone in to look at the real studies and look at the effects that people have reported. This really worries me, because people come out and say things without the facts."
Slesin agrees and says Lai's work is important for the research that does show effects from radiation. "[Lai] is one of the most widely cited scientists in this field," Slesin says.
The American Cancer Society did not reply to requests for an interview. Its official position on the risks of cell phone use states: "Radio frequency (RF) waves given off by cell phones don't have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this, many scientists believe that cell phones aren't able to cause cancer. Most studies done in the lab have supported this theory, finding that RF waves do not cause DNA damage."
CTIA-The Wireless Association, the cell phone industry trade organization, also declined to comment for this story, but its website states: "To date, global health organizations believe that the available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones. Many studies of low-level RF exposure, such as that which occurs with wireless devices, have not discovered any negative biological effects."
Dr. Beth Mueller, an epidemiologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, acknowledges that there is not strong evidence linking cell phones to brain tumors. But Mueller warns that the research is difficult and that much more study is needed. "I think [cell phone radiation] would be important to study. There are no studies I know of on the possible impact on children and I think it's something that many people–including some people here at the Hutch–want to see evaluated. I'm concerned because children are using [cell phones] a lot. It's something that should be looked at, definitely."
Katy Rock would agree. The Kirkland resident is an athletic 31-year-old who began having headaches in her late teens. "Headaches became an unwelcome fact of life for me in college," she says, "at first always after running around on the soccer or lacrosse field. So I assumed for years that it was due to dehydration/nutrition problems or just being out of shape. Eventually, they got worse. I started having them with no explainable cause."
It wasn't until a she had a seizure in 2007 that Rock discovered something was terribly wrong. The next day, she underwent an emergency double craniotomy to remove a tumor the size of a small lemon from her right frontal lobe and two tumors the size of large grapes from her right temporal lobe. A biopsy showed the cancerous tumors had been growing for about 10 years. A year of chemotherapy followed.
Rock was an early adopter of cell phones. Given a phone as a gift during college in 1997, she recalls using it about two to three hours a week (about 630 minutes a month). Her usage increased in later years with a job that required her to be on call. She is right-handed, and her tumors were on the right side.
Rock, who recently completed her first 5K run in support of Seattle Children's Hospital's Pediatric Brain Tumor Research Guild, would not be surprised to find a link between cell phones and brain tumors. "When I was in college, I used to charge my cell phone at night, and the charger cord ran over a leaf of my philodendron plant," she says. "Over time, the strip on the leaf where the cord touched turned brown. The small amount of power running through the cord was enough to kill some cells of the otherwise healthy plant."
While Rock's tale is merely metaphorical, its suggestive import is not lost on Devra Davis, Ph.D., a huge admirer of Lai's work to raise awareness about the potential hazards of cell phone radiation. Davis is a longtime toxicologist, public health expert and founder of the Wyoming-based Environmental Health Trust, a group that provides basic research and training on environmental health hazards. Davis' most recent book, released last October, is Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation. Davis calls Lai a "hero" for his groundbreaking work. "[Lai] has made a tremendous impact on the field in many aspects. Not just on the field of DNA, but on the brain, on receptors. In a fair and just world he would be a serious candidate for the Nobel Prize, because he did foundational research on the way the body responds to electromagnetic and radiofrequency radiation and because he persisted in the face of many challenges. He's been outstanding and indomitable in the face of opposition that would have overwhelmed most people."
In her book, Davis describes a disconnect between the general public's largely unquestioning acceptance of cell phone radiation and the large body of evidence suggesting cause for concern. With Lai's work as her foundation, Davis demonstrates a pattern of the cell phone industry's scientific manipulation spanning decades. Davis is particularly concerned because the rate of cell phone use by children is skyrocketing—with three out of four 12-year-olds and half of 10-years-olds in the U.S. now possessing a cell phone. Even more troubling: Lennart Hardell, Ph.D., a researcher in Sweden, found that those who began using cell phones in their teens (such as Rock) had four to five times the number of malignant tumors by their late 20s as those who did not use cell hones as teenagers.
While Davis would argue that there is a proven, causal link between cell phones and tumors, Lai does not. What he does say is that there is enough reason for concern, and that a "precautionary principle" should be embraced, as France has done in warning against cell phone use by children, and as San Francisco has done in mandating information on "specific absorption rates" of radiation on cell phone packaging.
"European countries generally believe you need some kind of precautionary approach," says Lai, who does not own—or use—a cell phone. "What else can we do? Obviously, we don't know the answer at all. But, then, there is a cause for concern. We need to take some kind of precautionary action." For now, however, Lai will continue to do research on the drug artemisinin—long used by Chinese herbalists—for applications in cancer treatment, because there is no longer any independent funding available for his research on the effects of nonionizing radiation.
Meanwhile, Davis, who uses a cell phone but only with a headset or as a speakerphone (she never keeps it close to her body), hopes that by the time the public realizes the importance of the path Lai has been on, it won't be too late. In Disconnect, she wonders how our grandchildren will answer these questions: "Did we do the right thing and act to protect them? Or did we harm them needlessly, irresponsibly and permanently, blinded by the addictive delights of our technological age?"
Autism may be Linked to Electromagnetic Radiation Levels In Mother's Bedroom During Pregnancy
Pilot Study Finds Over 20x Higher Microwave Power Density Levels in Mothers' Sleeping Locations During Pregnancy http://electromagnetichealth.org/media-stories/
Incidence of autistic babies has increased from 1 in 150 in 2002 to an estimated 1 in 50 babies today. Dr. Dietrich Klinghart, MD, PhD of the Institute of Neurobiology in Seattle recently conducted a pilot study to assess the potential role of electromagnetic frequencies in the dramatic rise in autism and other neurological impairments over the past decade. Various measurements of electromagnetic radiation exposure were assessed in the case of 10 children with neurological impairment, 8 categorized with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Data was obtained for: 1)Mothers' Body Voltagein the mothers' sleeping location during pregnancy; 2)Child's Body Voltage in current sleeping location; 3)Microwave Power Density in mothers' sleeping location during pregnancy (microwatt/square meter); and 4) Child's Microwave Exposure in current sleeping location.
Data for mothers with neurologically impaired children were contrasted with similar data for 5 healthy children and their mothers.
The results were as follows:
Body Voltage Levels: Median Body Voltage Level in Mom's Bed During Pregnancy* Value Range
Neurologically Impaired Children 1,872 milliVolts (380-6,040)
Healthy Group 224 milliVolts (12-480) 8.4x Higher Body Voltage Levels in Mom's with Neurologically Impaired Children *Note research shoes whatever the Body Voltage of the Mom, it is even higher in the fetus.
Body Voltage of Child in Current Bed Location Value Range
Neurologically Impaired Children 1,028 milliVolts (420-4,900)
Healthy Group 120 milliVolts (0-230) 8.5x Higher Body Voltage in Neurologically Impaired Child's Sleeping Location
Microwave Exposure: Microwave Power Density in Sleeping Location
Neurologically Impaired Children-Mom's Bed mw/sq. meterRange
Exposure In Pregnancy 290 (110-1,710)
Healthy Group 14 (0-67)
20.7x Higher Microwave Power Density in Mom's Sleeping Location In Cases Where Children Were Neurologically Impaired
This pilot data strongly suggests that electromagnetic radiation in the sleeping environment of mothers during pregnancy, as well as electromagnetic radiation in the sleeping environment of children, may be key undiscovered contributing if not causative factors in neurological impairments in children, including autism. Given increasing levels of ambient electromagnetic radiation in modern environments from society's use of electronic equipment, wireless technologies, such as cell phones and wireless networks, high frequency transients on electric lines, and broadband over power lines (BPL), this association needs immediate further exploration. Journalists wanting to pursue this story lead can review Dr. Klinghart's slides from the Crayhorn medical conference in July 2008 (KlinghardtCrayhonBoulderfest08.pdf) and then contact him via his assistant at info@klinghardtneurobiology.com. Philanthropists interested in funding further studies on the connection between autism and other neurological impairments in children, and electromagnetic fields, please contact us HYPERLINK "mailto:info@electromagnetichealth.org" info@electromagnetichealth.org to make arrangements to support worthy research. Listen to Dr. Deitrich Klinghardt, MD, PhD. on Preconception Medicine
In his opinion piece, your reporter, Mr. Stinson has failed to investigate the harm caused by electrification during the last century and has failed to investigate the adverse health effects caused by electro magnetic radiation, over the last sixty years. As a result he has reported inaccurate facts which may be very harmful to many of your readers. If you have an investigative reporter or editor (Dianne Francis is my first choice) who is willing to fully examine the facts, I can provide evidence to show that Stinson is failing to see the one of the most serious environmental threats that the world faces today.
Please be willing to examine and report on some of the research documents that I can provide you.
Martin Weatherall
Link to the false report -
Scott Stinson, National Post · Friday, Dec. 31, 2010
As a Canadian independent foundation, WEEP acts as an umbrella organization and focuses on progressive initiatives that bring increased awareness, policy change, and entrepreneurial activity around the issues of safe Electro Magnetic emissions.
WEEP News is a service provided by WEEP to keep those interested in and affected by Wireless, Electric, & Electromagnetic Pollution, informed on a daily basis, of all the current issues and initiatives in the world today.
Scientists call it the Beepocalyspe. (OK, not scientists, but I 
Posts
