W.E.E.P. News
Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News
7 July 2011
Breast Cancer and EMFs Research
45 potentially useful papers (attached as a word file).
With my very best regards
Yours sincerely
Olle
(Olle Johansson, assoc. prof.
The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm
Sweden
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Memory of Classien Smit
Warning - graphic and unpleasant photographs of breast cancer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microwave News
The battle over Interphone continues. This time it's
in full public view as key players publish papers detailing
where they stand on cell phone tumor risks. The
diametrically opposing views have led to conflicting
stories in the media as each new study is released.
The latest chapter came late last week when ICNIRP
announced that cell phones are safe.
Read the full story at:
http://www.microwavenews.com/ICNIRP.Interphone.htmlAnd be sure to check out the latest Short Take
on our home page: NCI's Martha Linet on IARC's
decision to classify RF radiation as a possible
human carcinogen.
Best,
Louis Slesin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFL Mercury amounts
July 6, 2011. Finally someone measured the mercury content of compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs!
We have been told that CFL bulbs contain 0.5 mg of mercury and that lower mercury-content bulbs will be produced in the future, yet many bulbs exceed this value as shown in the article below.
Li,Y. and L. Jin. 2011. Environmental Release of Mercury from Broken Compact Fluorescent Lamps, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE. 28 (10), 5 pp. Click here for pdf with links and here for abstract.
The total amount of mercury in CFLs ranged from 0.1 to 3.6 mg.
What does this mean?
Let's look at the water quality guidelines for mercury as a comparison.
The maxiumum concentration of total mercury in drinking water is 1.0 micro gram per litre. That number is 0.001 mg mercury per litre of water. Therefore the mercury content of a CFL bulb, at the nominal 0.5 mg per bulb, is 500 time higher than the concentration in a litre of drinking water!
Is there anyone out there who is a watch dog for this product or can CFL manufacturers do anything they want? We don't allow lead paint on toys from China yet we import light bulbs that contain mercury! This is not a bright idea for us, for the environment, or for the Chinese workers. Click http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6211261.ece to read 'Green' lightbulbs poison workers, Hundreds of factory staff are being made ill by mercury used in bulbs destined for the West.
-magda
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hull residents' protest over phone mast enters 10th week
Residents are running a 24-hour blockade on the site in Summergangs Road. Campaigners, who have occupied the site of a proposed mobile phone
mast in east Hull for 10 weeks, have said they are there for the "long-haul".
Robert
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not letting my kindergartner play under there for eight hours a day," she said last month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patch.com
The roof of Holy Family Medical Center is one location that houses nearby cell phone antennas. Providers need to have several locations to place antennas, which are low-strength. Had the proposal been approved, the city would have received about $27000 ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smart meters and health
I am gathering letters to the CPUC from scientists and physicians (PhD and MD's) on the topic of smart meters and health , the pertinence of the existing literature to smart meters, and the implications of the WHO findings that led to 2b classification of RF radiation as related to smart meters. These letters will be for the public use and will be used with the CPUC in several upcoming venues. If you can provide a name of a scientist or physician who might be queried about this, please send it to me at director@electrosmogprevention.org.
The letters must:
1. must be specific to smart meters and health
2. tie smart meter emissions and rf radiation literature together
3. tie smart meters and WHO 2b carcinogen determination together
4. be addressed to CPUC by the scientist/physician, specifically, c/o me
5. Cc'd to me, Susan Brinchman, Director, Center for Electrosmog Prevention
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South African News on EMFs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countering false information
Hi folks,
James Burrett is the author/owner of the blog. My comment (scroll down) has been awaiting moderation since July 1st.
I wonder if he will ever publish it?
************************
Hi and Welcome to Scientific Peterborough. We are a group of ordinary citizens who are concerned that public policy decisions are being made without the use of evidence based science. The latest example of this is a group of people who believe wi-fi in schools is harmful or potentially harmful. This organization is basing it's fear mostly on the words of one local professor who claims to have done research into the harmful effects of low power radio waves (wi-fi and cellphone) but so far has published nothing on the subject.
After witnessing the fearful angry parents last night at a public meeting I believe it is time for the silent majority to be able to express their opinion and show that the vast majority of people support the school board's decision to install wi-fi in all schools. this is being done in order to support the plan to give laptops to all teachers and to allow students to use smart connected devices in every classroom.
This entry was posted in
Wi-Fi in Schools and tagged
school wi-fi,
wi-fi,
wifi. Bookmark the
permalink.
Carl Katz Your comment is awaiting moderation.
>>This organization is basing it's fear mostly on the words of one local professor who claims to have done research into the harmful effects of low power radio waves (wi-fi and cellphone) but so far has published nothing on the subject.<<
This is factually incorrect on the following counts.
1 The professor in question has had a very relevant double blind study published where she provoked heart arrhythmia in several individuals using a DECT cordless home phone. One subject experienced an instantaneous doubling of heart rate. The study was about to be replicated when the scientist who was going to conduct the same study was kicked out of his lab.
2. Many of the parents who are objecting to Wi-Fi are electrohypersensitive (EHS) and are trying to protect ALL of the children who will be exposed to Wi-Fi – they have first hand experience. These parents have every right to be angry as the school district is not listening to them or the world renowned independent scientists who are sounding the alarm bell.
3. In a "blind" study which was featured on national TV program on the safety of Wi-Fi in schools, she was able to provoke a significant increase in heart rate of a grown man by exposing him to Wi-Fi radiation and the subject was able to reliably tell when the Wi-Fi was on or off. Health Canada is aware of this study. Why are they not attempting to replicate it using a "double blind" protocol?
I am a senior IT Tech in BC who became electrohypersensitive over four years ago. I have a very deep understanding of what happens from a biological standpoint and also technical standpoint from exposure to Wi-Fi or any other kind of non-ionizing radiation. Make no mistake – EHS is real, from someone who has had first hand experience. There is a clear temporal/spatial relationship to exposure and symptoms.
How interesting it is that Health Canada, who has in the past cited studies on low level electromagnetic radiation from the the World Health Organization (WHO) that support it's "Wi-Fi is safe" position refuses to change it's stance, despite the fact that though the WHO classified low level electromagnetic radiation as a 2B (possible) carcinogen at the end of May 2011.
Carl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precautionary Principle
A wonderful article that applies to so many things from drugs to bridge, bent scientists and corrupt government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The safety and wellbeing of all Australian children
Dear Sir/Madam
In light of:
- the NAPCAN MISSION to 'advocate on behalf of children and young people and to promote positive change in… policies, practices and the law to prevent abuse and neglect and ensure the safety and wellbeing of all Australian children'; and
- STRATEGY of 'encouraging adult and organisational behaviour which assures the safety and wellbeing of all children', and 'advocating for changes in legislation and public policy that put the needs and rights of children first':
There is a trend beginning and gaining momentum in Australia for primary schools to roll out parent-funded 1:1 laptop programs because of their apparent educational benefits.
The possible long-term and extremely far-reaching health implications of this (described in my open letters below) threaten not just individually sensitive children, but an entire generation of children in Australia. This generation, over the past few years have been exposed to an exponential and previously unexperienced increase of radiation from other currently uncontrollable sources (such as cell phone towers).
Please URGENTLY consider supporting:
- An immediate moratorium against WiFi in Primary Schools
- A Federal re-evaluation of the rollout of laptops and WiFi to high school students. (Laptops might be hardwired through the National Broadband Network optical fibre technology.)
Please read my letter to my son's school (Rossmoyne PS) below, together with the references provided. This is an extremely important issue. It will take about one hour to read the letters below and watch the 2 videos which have been carefully selected to give a very clear overview of the issues involved.
Please seriously and diligently consider my urgent concern for our children.
Thank you.
Kind regards
Colleen Gartz
Tel: 08-94573604
Address: 60 First Avenue, Rossmoyne, WA 6148
Sent: Friday, 1 July 2011 11:47 AM
Subject: Open letter to Rossmoyne Primary School: Wifi and Health
Dear Geoff, Members of the School Council and P&C
We know that there is a possibility and growing evidence to support the view that there is a biological danger from exposure to Wifi radiation. We also know that this danger is greatly increased for children. The possible biological effects of this radiation are: chromosome damage, short-term memory problems, cancers, cardiac risk, sterilisation… to name a few.
While there has been an exponential growth in the past few years of the amount of radiation that surrounds us and is currently beyond our control, it would be very short-sighted to introduce a new source directly into our primary school where our children spend more than 6 hours every day. While the possible benefits of a 1:1 laptop program at Rossmoyne Primary are apparent and have been aggressively marketed, the overall well-being of our children should be of foremost importance. The school has, as yet, not brought this issue to the attention of parents.
The issue is that while current legislation and guidelines for radiation exposure are pointed to, they are inadequate. Policy decisions take time to implement. To quote Dr Magda Havas*, who responded to my email yesterday, "It takes time for science to be translated into policy and the longer it takes the more harm is done to human health."
On having closely read the articles distributed by Geoff to assure us of the safety of Wifi (in spite of not having directly addressed the actual health concerns attached to Wifi), I have concluded that they present excellent examples of the kind of pressures and dilemmas that we, as parents, are faced with:
- The 'Wifi health.pdf' is produced by Aruba Networks, whose very business existence is based on selling mobile network services and devices. Need I say more? These companies are concerned simply with compliance to existing exposure limits and maximising their profits and image.
- With regard to Princeton University's Position Statement, it appears that PU is facing increasing concerns by the university community on the safety of their existing Wifi environment. It is in response to these growing concerns that the university has prepared a position paper. I would like to point out that the University of Princeton is in a completely different situation to that of Rossmoyne Primary School: the campus ALREADY has WiFi, and the University is therefore entrenched in the position that they currently hold. Rossmoyne Primary School, on the other hand, is concerned with the question of whether to place our CHILDREN (not adults) INTO a WiFi environment.
I have already given to Geoff, and attach here a list of bans or warnings against Wifi.
I would encourage you all to consider the following resources for starters:
There are many, many more resources available.
The school leaders and management stand at a crossroads. They are in a unique position to guide both our school and others in this very important decision.
I will appreciate it if this email can be forwarded to and minuted by the P&C and Members of the School Council.
Thank you.
Colleen Gartz
----------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Monday, 4 July 2011 11:39 PM
To: 'Geoff Anderson'; 'danielle@clovellyconcepts.com.au'
Subject: Unethical practise?
Dear Geoff and Danielle
In 1990 Australia ratified the 'Convention on the Rights of the Child'.
http://www.unicef.org/crc/
The Convention 'spells out the basic human rights that children everywhere have: the right to survival; to develop to the fullest; to protection from harmful influences, abuse…'
In case you are still unclear as to exactly what the dangers of WiFi are, they can be found in the Declaration of Dr David O. Carpenter, M.D., in the ongoing civil action case between David Morrison (a parent), and Portland Public Schools. This declaration was signed on 1st June 2011. http://www.wirelesswatchblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Declaration-of-David-Carpenter.pdf
You can read Dr Carpenter's qualifications and public health experience in points 1-6 of the Declaration.
Points 7-20 will explain to you in detail exactly what kind of health effects there are.
In light of my previous email, the above information, and the fact that parents have not been informed of these very real risks to their children's health, don't you feel that is it is reasonable to conclude that continuing with the Questionnaire to parents on the 1:1 Laptop program can be considered highly unethical?
Thank you for your consideration.
Kind regards
Colleen Gartz
>>This organization is basing it's fear mostly on the words of one local professor who claims to have done research into the harmful effects of low power radio waves (wi-fi and cellphone) but so far has published nothing on the subject.<<
This is factually incorrect on the following counts.
1 The professor in question has had a very relevant double blind study published where she provoked heart arrhythmia in several individuals using a DECT cordless home phone. One subject experienced an instantaneous doubling of heart rate. The study was about to be replicated when the scientist who was going to conduct the same study was kicked out of his lab.
2. Many of the parents who are objecting to Wi-Fi are electrohypersensitive (EHS) and are trying to protect ALL of the children who will be exposed to Wi-Fi – they have first hand experience. These parents have every right to be angry as the school district is not listening to them or the world renowned independent scientists who are sounding the alarm bell.
3. In a "blind" study which was featured on national TV program on the safety of Wi-Fi in schools, she was able to provoke a significant increase in heart rate of a grown man by exposing him to Wi-Fi radiation and the subject was able to reliably tell when the Wi-Fi was on or off. Health Canada is aware of this study. Why are they not attempting to replicate it using a "double blind" protocol?
I am a senior IT Tech in BC who became electrohypersensitive over four years ago. I have a very deep understanding of what happens from a biological standpoint and also technical standpoint from exposure to Wi-Fi or any other kind of non-ionizing radiation. Make no mistake – EHS is real, from someone who has had first hand experience. There is a clear temporal/spatial relationship to exposure and symptoms.
How interesting it is that Health Canada, who has in the past cited studies on low level electromagnetic radiation from the the World Health Organization (WHO) that support it's "Wi-Fi is safe" position refuses to change it's stance, despite the fact that though the WHO classified low level electromagnetic radiation as a 2B (possible) carcinogen at the end of May 2011.
Carl