Grounding the human body / Scientific studies : Discharge routine / Drew Sinatra, ND, speaks out / The cellphone song / "Scientific American" or Lady Gaga?

W.E.E.P. News

Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News

30 September 2010

GROUNDING THE HUMAN BODY TO NEUTRALIZE BIO-ELECTRICAL STRESS FROM STATIC ELECTRICITY AND EMFs.

A. Clinton Ober

[view Mr. Ober's bio]

Ventura, CA

http://www.next-up.org/pdf/ESD_Journal_Grounding_the_human_body_to_neutralize_bioelectrical_stress_from_static_electricity_and_EMFs.pdf

Robert R

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMF - Scientific studies : Discharge routine (human physiology, stress, pain, sleep,)
http://www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/EHS_Discharge.php#1

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drew Sinatra, ND, speaks out on behalf of people with electrohypersensitivity

at White Rock Council Meeting, September 27, 2010.

From Council Chambers ....27 Sep 2010 

http://healthy360.blogspot.com/2010/09/alarm-signals-from-dr-drew-sinatrand-on.html

Una

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(the cellphone song) Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age by ...

By admin

Lyrics Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age Its like the hissing of pots and the cooking of cells twisting in knots like the book of the kells. its the clotting of minds – its a fight with the heart the rotting of time, ... plan is to leave us high and dry and the FDA policy is to lie and deny it goes one ear – but not out the other. i aquired alzeimers and i doubt ill recover whos responsible for the wear and tear on my brain i know that im here

http://www.confusedtoday.co.uk/the-cellphone-song-invisible-hazards-in-the-wireless-age-by-trillion/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who gives better science "Scientific American" or Lady Gaga?

Read all about it at:

http://www.microwavenews.com

Best,
Louis Slesin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Wehrle:

I agree with your excellent article except for one blaring fallacy, regarding the extant science and criteria therefor. You say:

"Neither of these influences has anything to do with health, but they are significant factors in any decision Health Canada will make. I suggest that to overcome those two influences there will have to be irrefutable and overwhelming evidence of harm and that level of evidence does not yet exist."

First, how unfortunate that the Precautionary Principle, which is international law, and to which Canadian federal law further subscribes, ought not in your view apply. This said, I have long observed the Precautionary Principle to be disregarded by public officials in all of North America, as if the US and Canada were not signatories, which they in fact are. Do you truly not recognize this law? If so, please tell, whyever not?

Secondly, I am absolutely astonished you would assert that irrefutable and overwhelming evidence of harm does not exist, while admitting this is not your field of expertise, and after I showed you a very full and quantitative literature review of the infrastructural-level scientific literature of the past twenty+ years.

Perhaps you have confused this literature with that relating to cell phone usage, which my former mentor Devra Lee Davis cites as internally inconclusive on account of industry influence?

These respective, very disparate scientific literatures must not be confused, differing as they do by the following essential factors.

Infrastructural studies v. cell phone usage studies:

  a. Primarily far-field v. primarily near-field exposures;

  b. Measured power density exposure levels v. estimated, absorbed dosages as SAR;

  c. Primarily chronic, longterm, even maximal and permanent duration v. primarily short and intermittent durations;

  d. Primarily involuntary, government-forced, unavoidable v. primarily voluntary, avoidable exposures;

  e. All humans, animals and plants v. primarily healthy, financially capable*, competent adults and their older children

* Capable enough to pay a cell phone bill, for example.

When you consider the extreme differences in these important variables, you understand why, as Dr. Dimitri Panagopoulos and others testified this year before Parliament, the scientific literature would indeed and in fact does show irrefutably and with overwhelming evidence the very serious and often permanent harmfulness of pulse-modulated cm-microwave radiation in interaction with the human body.

This well established fact cannot be refuted by the endless industry and industry-driven position statements that continue to use bullying power to overwhelm public opinion.

Anyone can look at the primary scientific papers and witness both their conclusions and their power density numbers. I made those papers available to you and all those who attended my lectures. Sadly, without the slightest review of that science, you made a false conclusion - publicly! - with no knowledge whatsoever, rather than avail yourself of the primary documents.

Nor, to my knowledge, has any other school trustee in Canada so much as inquired of the primary science. I thank you, at least, for attending my lectures, where I provided a basis for understanding this science and the quantitative data on the studies.

All school administrators and teachers, as well as parents working on the matter of school wifi, ought review these studies' conclusions publicly, one by one, with the numbers at which researchers concluded harm at power densities lower than Safety Code 6.

Let us be objective and caring toward both the rigorous RFR bioeffects science performed by many since the late 1920s - and toward our children. Otherwise the cloud of industry smoke-and-mirrors will continue to confuse policy, as you point out. Let us all set a good example for our children and not shrink from learning science. Since you are a physicist, I know you'll agree with me on this!

With gratitude for your initial efforts,

Susan Clarke

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

Mobile phone mast effects on common frog / Blackberry Torch / Lady Gaga says no / A Cancer Muckraker Takes on Cell Phones

W.E.E.P. News

Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News

29 September 2010

Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory.

Electromagn Biol Med. 2010 Jun;29(1-2):31-5.

Balmori A.

C/Navarra, Valladolid, Spain. abalmori@ono.com

Abstract

An experiment has been made exposing eggs and tadpoles of the common frog (Rana temporaria) to electromagnetic radiation from several mobile (cell) phone antennae located at a distance of 140 meters. The experiment lasted two months, from the egg phase until an advanced phase of tadpole prior to metamorphosis. Measurements of electric field intensity (radiofrequencies and microwaves) in V/m obtained with three different devices were 1.8 to 3.5 V/m. In the exposed group (n = 70), low coordination of movements, an asynchronous growth, resulting in both big and small tadpoles, and a high mortality (90%) was observed. Regarding the control group (n = 70) under the same conditions but inside a Faraday cage, the coordination of movements was normal, the development was synchronous, and a mortality of 4.2% was obtained. These results indicate that radiation emitted by phone masts in a real situation may affect the development and may cause an increase in mortality of exposed tadpoles. This research may have huge implications for the natural world, which is now exposed to high microwave radiation levels from a multitude of phone masts.

PMID: 20560769 [PubMed - in process]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blackberry Torch Product Information

Page 23-24 mentions pregnant women and lower abdomens of teenagers.

http://docs.blackberry.com/en/smartphone_users/deliverables/18620/BlackBerry_Torch_9800_Smartphone-Safety_and_Product_Information-T43156-696706-0806024453-001-US.pdf

Ellie Marks
Emarks@apr.com
925.285.5437

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Lady Gaga says no to radiation from mobile phones"

http://www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/DAS_SAR.php#1

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Cancer Muckraker Takes on Cell Phones

Posted by Bryan Walsh Monday, September 27, 2010 at 6:00 am

2 Comments • Related Topics: Health , cell phones, cancer, environmental health, Devra Davis, book review, industry science

If anyone would be receptive to the idea that cell phone radiation might play a role in cancer, it would be Dr. Devra Davis. The epidemiologist and toxicologist is an expert in environmental health, and she's made a career out of the idea that cancer often has more to do with what's happening to us than what's going on inside our genes. Her 2007 book The Secret History of the War on Cancer showed that some of the best medical minds in the U.S. played down the environmental factors behind cancer—from cigarette smoke to chemical exposure—far too long, in part because of deception and delay from industry.

But when a colleague raised the possibility that cell phones could be connected to brain cancer, Davis wasn't receptive. "I couldn't believe it and I didn't want to," says Davis. "These were attractive devices. Cell phones were like cars—you couldn't imagine life without them." But as she began to look seriously into the field, Davis began to have doubts that cell phones were harmless. She found evidence of studies, some decades old, showing that the radio-frequency radiation used by cell phones could indeed have biological effects–enough to damage DNA and potentially contribute to brain tumors. She found that other countries—like France and Israel—had already acted, discouraging the use of cell phones by children and even putting warning signs on handsets. She found evidence of  increases in certain kinds of brain tumors among unusually young patients who were heavy users of cell phones. And, just as she saw with tobacco and lung cancer, Davis discovered that the wireless industry—often with the help of governments—had fought independent scientists who studied cell phones, and helped produced questionable science that effectively clouded the issue. "This is about the most important and unrecognized public health issues of our time," says Davis."We could avert a global catastrophe if we act."

Her new book Disconnect is the result of those investigations, and it's convincing enough to give you pause before you fire up that iPhone. I've already covered the possible connections between cell phones and cancer—you can see my February story in TIME for a backgrounder on the scientific debate, and another piece I did recently on the Interphone study, a collection of international studies on mobiles and cancer that was meant to clarify the issue, but only ended up further confusing it. It's a complex subject—mixing electrical engineering, biology and epidemiology—but Davis makes a strong case in her book that we've underplayed the possible threat from cell phones for too long. We're disconnected—even as worrying studies have begun to pile up, however quietly, the message has been slow to reach those in public health and even slower to reach the government. "The fact that we don't know everything about the subject doesn't mean that everything is fine," she says. "I can't tell you that cell phones are dangerous, but I can tell you that I'm not sure they're safe."

The wireless industry has an easy answer for this: in the thousands of studies that have been done on cell phones and health, few of them have shown any effect—and public agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the World Health Organization have found no clear health risks. As CTIA, the wireless industry group, says in a statement on its website: "To date, no adverse health effects have been established for mobile phone use."

The magic word there is "established," because as Davis argues in some of the best passages of Disconnect, it could be that we haven't established the dangers of cell phone use because we haven't asked the right questions—and that might be on purpose. "If you don't want to know the answer," Davis says, "don't ask the question." Much of the research into the biological effects of cell phone radiation has been underwritten by the... cell phone industry, and you don't have to be a raging paranoiac to wonder whether that money might have an impact on the conclusions of those thousands of studies. After all, in this case—just as it was with tobacco and lung cancer—doubt is the friend of industry. To hold off the possibility of legislation or regulation—not to mention lawsuits—wireless companies and their advocates don't have to prove that cell phones are safe beyond any doubt. They just have to play defense.

However, as Davis shows in Disconnect, that argument is going to get tougher and tougher to make. In one of the finest passages of her book, Davis details the tale of Dr. Franz Adlkofer, a German scientist who had long been involved in tobacco research. Like many scientists—more than medical science might like to admit—Adlkofer was willing to take money from the tobacco industry to fund his research, without really thinking about how that might constrain his work. He was, in a sense, a company man. But when Adlkofer began working with the wireless industry and produced research showing that cell phone radiation unravels DNA, he suddenly found his work under attack by the industry that had funded it. He was accused of fraud in highly suspicious circumstances (he fought the charges, and they were eventually withdrawn), and says the industry paid other scientists to produce studies that would discredit his own work, as he told Davis in Disconnect:

I can't prove this, but here's what I think they did. The industry never liked this work. From the first they heard about it, they set out to discredit it. I had seen this happen with tobacco science so often, especially at the hands of the American companies. Yet suddenly it was happening to me.

Davis is justifiably suspicious of Adlkofer—he was a tobacco scientist, after all—but ultimately his story seems to check out. He's also far from the only researcher Davis meets whose career suffered after challenging the conventional wisdom on cell phones and cancer. Davis shows that independent studies on cell phone radiation found dangers at more than twice the rate of industry-funded studies—though because the cell phone industry is the source of much of the funding of cell phone studies, there are far more of the latter. And ultimately that is what is truly disturbing about Davis's book. Time and again, she shows the way that industry has been able to twist science just enough to stave off the possibility of any regulation—and finds that researchers are afraid of challenging the status quo, lest they find themselves suddenly out of a job, denied the lifeblood of research money. Most of the few brave researchers who challenge the prevailing wisdom on cell phone radiation—like the electrical engineer Om Gandhi or the bioengineer Henry Lai—are senior scientists, secure in their positions and their tenure. But a young researcher just starting out is far more vulnerable to industry pressure. Science isn't as pristine as we imagine it. "There has not been truly independent research in this field," says Davis. "That has to change."

Davis wants to see the government fund new studies on cell phones and health, independent of government interference—and fortunately the National Toxicology Program will be running its own tests, though not until 2014. The good news in the meantime is that you don't have to throw away your cell phone to minimize any potential risks. Simply using a wired headset should significantly cut down on radiation exposure to the brain, although Davis recommends that children—whose thinner skulls can absorb higher levels of radiation—avoid using phones altogether. "We do so much to protect our children from all manner of threats," she says. "We need to protect them from this as well." Read Disconnect, and you'll be on guard as well.

Read more:

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/09/27/health-a-cancer-muckraker-takes-on-cell-phones/#ixzz10rTJyBXM

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