W.E.E.P. News
Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News
30 April 2011
Cell Phones, Microwaves And The Human Health Threat
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26708/?p1=blogs
The microwaves that cell phones emit can interact with human tissue in an entirely new way, says theoretical biologist at a government lab
kfc 04/28/2011
If there's one topic likely to generate spit-flecked ire, it is the controversy over the potential health threat posed by cell phone signals.
That debate is likely to flare following the publication today of some new ideas on this topic from Bill Bruno, a theoretical biologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
The big question is whether signals from cell phones or cell phone towers can damage biological tissue.
On the one hand, there is a substantial body of evidence in which cell phone signals have supposedly influenced human health and behaviour. The list of symptoms includes depression, sleep loss, changes in brain metabolism, headaches and so on.
On the other hand, there is a substantial body of epidemiological evidence that finds no connection between adverse health effects and cell phone exposure.
What's more, physicists point out that the radiation emitted by cell phones cannot damage biological tissue because microwave photons do not have enough energy to break chemical bonds.
The absence of a mechanism that can do damage means that microwave photons must be safe, they say.
That's been a powerful argument. Until now.
Today, Bruno points out that there is another way in which photons could damage biological tissue, which has not yet been accounted for.
He argues that the traditional argument only applies when the number of photons is less than one in a volume of space equivalent to a cubic wavelength.
When the density of photons is higher than this, other effects can come into play because photons can interfere constructively. Bruno points to the well known example of optical tweezers in which coherent photons combine to push, pull and rotate small objects such as cells.
In this case, the force is generated when dielectric objects sit in an electric field gradient associated with the photons. More photons generate more force.
The damage that optical tweezers can do to structures in cells is well reported, he says. That's because of the large change in refractive index at the edge of cellular structures such as vesicles, myelin sheaths and so on, and the high density of photons.
Of course, optical tweezers generally work at infrared frequencies. The question that Bruno poses is whether a similar effect could also work for microwave photons.
This boils down to two factors. The first is whether there is a high enough density of microwave photons from cellphones to generate a force capable of damaging biological tissues. The second is whether there are structures in the body with the required dielectric properties to be susceptible.
On both counts, Bruno says there are reasons to be cautious. First, the density of microwave photons from cell phones and cell phone towers is many orders of magnitude higher than 1 per cubic wavelength. For this reason alone, Bruno says the traditional safety arguments do not apply.
Second, the human body contains many structures including neurons up to a meter or so long that could be susceptible to the combined effect of many photons. Some of these structures may actually focus microwave photons, increasing the photon density inside the body.
(If you're wondering why the concern is over cellphones and not other transmissions, it turns out that frequencies above 10 GHz tend to be absorbed by the skin while frequencies lower than 1 GHz--TV or radio transmissions say--are thought to be reflected without much energy transfer.)
So what might be a safe level of exposure? Bruno suggests that the night time background rate of microwaves might be a reasonable limit. "Unfortunately, this level is very low by cellphone-technology standards, some 8 to 9 orders of magnitude lower than common cell tower exposures," he says.
If that is unachievable, then another choice might be about an exposure equivalent to the average thermal energy per cubic wavelength. Bruno says this would be equivalent to an exposure of about 30 picoWatts per square metre at 1 GHz. "This equates to exposure from a cell tower at a distance of a few miles," he says.
Either way, that's likely to generate some concern.
Bruno's conclusion is that the the way safe dosage limits is determined is broken because it does not take this new tweezer-like mechanism into account.
That places the ball firmly into the physicists court. It may be that there are good reasons why Bruno's tweezer mechanism does not represent a threat. If so, we can expect physicists to post a robust defence of the cell phone exposure limits.
But Bruno will need to be braced for other, mindless kinds of responses too. Either way, sit back and watch an interesting and important debate unfold.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1104.5008: What Does Photon Energy Tell Us About Cell Phone Safety?
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.5008.pdf (original paper)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public board trustees to stop hearing from Wi-Fi opponents for six months
She said the Catholic board may not have any reported problems from its Wi-Fi but it hasn't done a health survey, done before and after installation, to know if there are any effects.
NOTES: Peterborough trustee Roy Wilfong said people who haven't ...
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3100240
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi All
In the above story Kawartha School Board officials negligently ignored scientific information that they have been provided and blindly accept the word of Health Canada that Wi Fi is safe to expose children to. Health Canada have a poor track record of safety.
In the recent news story below you will see that Health Canada is providing Hep B vaccine to children, which has recently found to be highly dangerous and known to cause serious illness to children.
Martin
--------------------------------------------------------
US Government Concedes Hep B Vaccine Causes Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Whilst the risk factors for babies have changed little, there is now impressive evidence that for a preventive measure, hepatitis B vaccine is remarkable for the frequency, variety and severity of complications from its use. The toxicity of this vaccine is so unusual that, even if crucial data are regrettably concealed or covered by Court order, scientific evidence is already far higher than normally needed to justify severe restrictive measures."
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/us-concedes-hep-b-causes-lupus/
In Canada, vaccines to prevent the following diseases are considered routine, and are given free of charge to children in all provinces and territories:
- diphtheria;
- tetanus (lockjaw);
- pertussis (whooping cough);
- polio;
- rubella (German measles);
- measles (red measles);
- mumps;
- hepatitis B; and
- Haemophilus influenza type b disease.
These vaccines are given by needle "shots."
In Canada, the hepatitis B vaccine is given alone.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/med/immuniz-eng.php
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEEP on Facebook
Here is the link for the WEEP Initiative ~ EHS Support page. This page is open for comments so we can all connect with each other and chat or share news.
You can't do groups on FB pages but I have one on my personal page for closed discussions with members only. I can add anyone to this group if they send me a friend request and explain who they are.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/WEEP-Initiative-EHS-Support/199282410110755
Sue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phones, Radiation Exposure and the Workplace
I have a claim with the Workmans Compensation Board in British Columbia, Canada, regarding an injury from microwave. My case is a bit different than most as it was a massive dose but (most of my claim could be handled within the inadequate Safety code 6), as you would expect they are doing their best to confuse the issue and deny my claim.
I realised there are a number of others with WCB claims and we are all working over top of each other. It occurred to me that we would all do better establishing some basic parameters as a group. I have a web site set up at: http://www.wcb-emf.ca/ with a contact info etc for those interested in being part of a group to establish some of the basic precedences for all with a claim.
Please feel free to pass this information on to others
Norm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stores told to reposition microwaves
A recent investigation of convenience stores nationwide found that more than 50% might be exposing their workers to too much radiation
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2011/04/30/2003502066
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents upset at cell phone tower location
"The cell phone and the antenna mounted on the towers and building rooftops use the same frequencies to communicate. The major difference is that if you live near a cell phone tower, with multiple antennas, your body (and not just your head) is going ...
http://www.insidehalton.com/news/article/1000550--residents-upset-at-cell-phone-tower-location
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swisscom admits that WiFi can Harm People
Swisscom reveals the true DANGER of WiFi in a patent application. Swisscom is the leading telecom provider in Switzerland and it devised a way to reduce the microwave radiation from WiFi (also known as WLAN or wireless local area network). In its patent application, Swisscom clearly states the elevated risk of cancer and genetic damage from the constant low level microwave/RF exposure from WiFi.
read more:
http://www.safeschool.ca/Swisscom__WiFi_Harms.html
Barb
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds Bees Animals and the Environment
Dear Martin
Thank you for letting us know of your concerns about this issue (EMR) and for providing us with so much background information.
As you know, there are many threats to the natural world and we are doing our best to strategically tackle those that we can. Unfortunately our capacity to address issues outside our current programs is limited. However, it's important to have emerging issues like this on our radar to inform future program planning. We will do our best to consider the information you have sent.
Ontario Nature
366 Adelaide Street West, Suite 201
Toronto, ON M5V 1R9
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cell phone tower case goes to court
Khalsa and several other neighbors argue that they were not properly notified that an existing 55-foot radio antenna was being replaced with a 124-foot cellular phone tower disguised as a flagpole.
They say a town notice they received referred to the ...
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20110428-NEWS-104280356
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
