Sunday, May 31, 2009

Anxiety 'hitting British workers' / Birds, bees and electromagnetic pollution / George Carlo Part1

Anxiety 'hitting British workers'

British workers are experiencing panic attacks and insomnia because of stress associated with the economic downturn, a survey has suggested.

Norwich Union Healthcare polled 200 GPs, 200 business leaders and 1,000 employees for its Health of the Workplace survey.

Half the workers admitted to being stressed, while one in five is suffering depression.

A leading GP said people now had better access to talking therapies.

The annual Norwich Union healthcare study found workers are putting increasing amounts of time and effort into their jobs.

About half are going into work when they are ill and working longer hours, while just over a third are not taking lunch breaks.

" We are seeing an increase in anxiety and stress due to the economic situation "
Professor Steve Field, president of the Royal College of GPs

And 33% of the employees questioned said they were offering to take on more responsibility.

When the workers were asked about their illness, half said they were suffering from insomnia while a third said they were having migraines and 21% had anxiety attacks and palpitations.

Almost a third said they were drinking more and a fifth were smoking more. A third said they were comfort eating, and 11% said they were self-medicating with over-the-counter medicines.

Of the GPs questioned, almost half said they have seen their patients' use of alcohol and drug increase, and 89% expect levels of depression and requests for anti-depressants to dramatically increase this year.

And more than nine out of 10 of the GPs and 80% of employers polled predicted that stress-related illness will be the most critical occupational health issue of 2009.

'Far-reaching effects'

But even though 97% of business leaders agree the health status of staff impacts upon productivity, only 1% said they planned to introduce new health measures in 2009.

Dr Douglas Wright, head of clinical governance at Norwich Union Healthcare, said: "On top of the adverse mental effects of stress itself, an unhealthy diet, limited exercise and increased levels of smoking and drinking could have far-reaching and long-term effects on both the nation's health and the UK economy."

Professor Steve Field, president of the Royal College of GPs, said: "We are seeing an increase in anxiety and stress due to the economic situation.

"But we are very pleased that the Department of Health has invested in increasing access to talking psychological therapies because that means we'll be able to help patients more than ever before."

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Petition to the Government of Canada / EMF-Omega News

Petition to the Government of Canada
As promised, attached is the House Petition along with a few examples of collusion and negligence in Health Canada that have resulted in our health, and that of our families, being endangered. If people are not aware of or interested in one area such as EMR, there, hopefully, will be some topic with which they are concerned.
A group of us across Canada will be passing these out to everyone we know who is interested in changing things for the better, whether it is regarding EMR, food safety, drug regulation, genetically modified food, CFL lightbulbs, or any number of issues. We hope to get as many signatures as possible -- 1000s-- and having one or more members of Parliament present our petition to Parliament during the fall session and demand change in the way Health Canada operates and the people who are operating it.
The rules for a House petition are simple:
1. Any resident of Canada can sign, regardless of age or citizenship.
2. There must be an actual signature -- no internet petition.
3. Provide an address, but a city, province and postal code is sufficient.
4. The front of each page must have the petition statement, but the backside does not. I have provided a front and a back with lines, for ease of duplicating.
5. Please circulate this to all of your family, friends, acquaintances, colleagues and ask them to circulate it. Please ask the person to whom you circulate it to return all copies to you, as I am asking you to return all copies to me. I will then get it to the MPs for presentation.
6. Please have these returned to me by September 10, 2010.
This is a national effort, so please don't forget people in other provinces: let them get involved, too.
We can make a difference, and this is a first step. Please take it with me.
Thank you,

[ ]

Examples of Health Can.'s Collusion for petition.rtf
68K Download

final House Petition.rtf
283K Download

Dear Sir, Madam, Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends,
for your information.

Best regards,
Klaus Rudolph
Citizens' Initiative Omega
Member of the Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated society) Protectorate Union of the Citizens and Initiatives for the Protection against Electrosmog

Cancer and Broadcasting Radiation

Why is there a left laterality of melanoma and breast cancer?

Some People May be 'Allergic' to Cell Phones, Computers

Professor warns of cellphone health hazards

Status of the INTERPHONE Study

France: The government has agreed to try out in certain towns the radiation level of 0.6 V/m

Mobile phones to be banned in French primary schools to limit health risks

Los Angeles Unified School District Resolution on Cell Antennas

Literature Dept. Plans Cancer Teach-In

Toxic link: the WHO and the IAEA

Petition: Save our Children from Microwaves (S.E.M.O.)

More checks in place after planning bungle

Mobile phone masts ban could be lifted by Sefton Council

Orange fights for St Albans phone mast

Ticehurst councillor questions safety of new wireless masts in schools

Fears of high voltage cables

Saco Residents Battle Transmission Line ProjectBack

Electromagnetic interference (EMI) affects the performance of sensitive medical equipment

Road safety investigation

Tests mesures LFC: Vérité & Pathologies

Next-up News Nr 969

Next-up News Nr 974

News from Mast Sanity


Our links: <>

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, Internet . Thank you.


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.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Professor warns of cellphone health hazards / How to get rid of an illegal U.S. law? / Toxic link WHO / High-speed internet policy

Professor warns of cellphone health hazards    

Updated Wed. May. 27 2009 10:24 AM ET News Staff

A Columbia University professor is warning the public about the negative health effects of man-made electromagnetic fields, which come out of cellphones and power lines. 
Dr. Martin Blank, a professor with the school's Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, compared the EMF waves to the ripples caused by dropping a pebble into a quiescent pond. 
"The water doesn't move, it just carries the energy further and further out," Blank told CTV's Canada AM Wednesday. 
"It's the same thing about these waves. These waves are generated in all kinds of charges that are present anywhere. 
"When you get an electromagnetic field that's coming out of a power line, or it's coming out of a cellphone antenna or a cellphone tower it's going to do things to the molecules in our body." 
Blank says EMFs in the environment may lead to brain tumours, Alzheimer's disease, dementia and breast cancer.
Blank, who is speaking in Toronto Wednesday on behalf of the BioInitiative Working Group, said past research has focused too much on the thermal effects of man-made EMFs. 
"The heat is what everyone has focused on largely because that was an easy thing to measure," he said. 
However, Blank said researchers are now able to measure biochemical changes. 
"The biochemical changes occur long before there are changes in temperature," he said. 
"That's why people who have focused on the thermal effects, which is the measure of the heat, have gotten the wrong answer." 
He said researchers have concluded that there is no real harm because they haven't found any changes in temperature. 
"That's not true, there's a lot of change going on there," Blank said. 
"One of the changes we've found is the stress response. The cells themselves are telling us that they're in trouble." 
In the "language of the cells," they start to make new proteins that they haven't made before and that they only make when they're in trouble. 
"These stress proteins are made with all these different electromagnetic fields (EMF)," he said. 
"They're made with power line EMFs, they're made with cellphone EMFs and there a clear indication that the cell senses this stuff as potentially harmful."
From: Linda Sepp
How to get rid of an illegal U.S. law?
An important development - the Los Angeles Unified School District unanimously passes a resolution calling for repeal of Sectioon 704 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 that preempts states and local governments from taking environmental (i.e. human health) effects into account when denying a permit to site a FCC licensed wireless transmitter.  This Resolution was introduced by LAUSD Board member Julie Korenstein who in 2000 got an ordinance in place to ban cell towers at LA City Public Schools. Many individuals and groups endorsed this new Resolution, see below, including the link to the CLOUT Petition, attached.  
Elizabeth Kelley,

Subject: Los Angeles Unified School District Resolution on Cell Antennas
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 19:44:52 -0700
Nine years ago, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Board of Education passed a resolution opposing the placement of cellular towers on or near school property.
On May 26, 2009, the LAUSD Board unanimously passed a second resolution concerning the ongoing proliferation of wireless antennas near schools that includes a statement in favor of repealing the Telecommunication Act of 1996's preemption of consideration of health and environmental effects of wireless facilities.
To read both resolutions, please visit the CLOUT website at

While your there, please consider signing CLOUT's petition and ask at least 10 of your friends via email to do the same. Thanks.

Toxic link: the WHO and the IAEA

A 50-year-old agreement with the IAEA has effectively gagged the WHO from telling the truth about the health risks of radiation

Fifty years ago, on 28 May 1959, the World Health Organisation's assembly voted into force an obscure but important agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency the United Nations "Atoms for Peace" organisation, founded just two years before in 1957. The effect of this agreement has been to give the IAEA an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power and so prevent the WHO from playing its proper role in investigating and warning of the dangers of nuclear radiation on human health.

The WHO's objective is to promote "the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health", while the IAEA's mission is to "accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world". Although best known for its work to restrict nuclear proliferation, the IAEA's main role has been to promote the interests of the nuclear power industry worldwide, and it has used the agreement to suppress the growing body of scientific information on the real health risks of nuclear radiation.

Under the agreement, whenever either organisation wants to do anything in which the other may have an interest, it "shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement". The two agencies must "keep each other fully informed concerning all projected activities and all programs of work which may be of interest to both parties". And in the realm of statistics a key area in the epidemiology of nuclear risk the two undertake "to consult with each other on the most efficient use of information, resources, and technical personnel in the field of statistics and in regard to all statistical projects dealing with matters of common interest".

The language appears to be evenhanded, but the effect has been one-sided. For example, investigations into the health impacts of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine on 26 April 1986 have been effectively taken over by IAEA and dissenting information has been suppressed. The health effects of the accident were the subject of two major conferences, in Geneva in 1995, and in Kiev in 2001. But the full proceedings of those conferences remain unpublished despite claims to the contrary by a senior WHO spokesman reported in Le Monde Diplomatique.

Meanwhile, the 2005 report of the IAEA-dominated Chernobyl Forum, which estimates a total death toll from the accident of only several thousand, is widely regarded as a whitewash as it ignores a host of peer-reviewed epidemiological studies indicating far higher mortality and widespread genomic damage. Many of these studies were presented at the Geneva and Kiev conferences but they, and the ensuing learned discussions, have yet to see the light of day thanks to the non-publication of the proceedings.

The British radiation biologist Keith Baverstock is another casualty of the agreement, and of the mindset it has created in the WHO. He served as a radiation scientist and regional adviser at the WHO's European Office from 1991 to 2003, when he was sacked after expressing concern to his senior managers that new epidemiological evidence from nuclear test veterans and from soldiers exposed to depleted uranium indicated that current risk models for nuclear radiation were understating the real hazards.

Now a professor at the University of Kuopio, Finland, Baverstock finally published his paper in the peer-reviewed journal Medicine, Conflict and Survival in April 2005. He concluded by calling for "reform from within the profession" and stressing "the political imperative for freely independent scientific institutions" a clear reference to the non-independence of his former employer, the WHO, which had so long ignored his concerns.

Since the 21st anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster in April 2007, a daily "Hippocratic vigil" has taken place at the WHO's offices in Geneva, organised by Independent WHO to persuade the WHO to abandon its the WHO-IAEA Agreement. The protest has continued through the WHO's 62nd World Health Assembly, which ended yesterday, and will endure through the executive board meeting that begins today. The group has struggled to win support from WHO's member states. But the scientific case against the agreement is building up, most recently when the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) called for its abandonment at its conference earlier this month in Lesvos, Greece.

At the conference, research was presented indicating that as many as a million children across Europe and Asia may have died in the womb as a result of radiation from Chernobyl, as well as hundreds of thousands of others exposed to radiation fallout, backing up earlier findings published by the ECRR in Chernobyl 20 Years On: Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident. Delegates heard that the standard risk models for radiation risk published by the International Committee on Radiological Protection (ICRP), and accepted by WHO, underestimate the health impacts of low levels of internal radiation by between 100 and 1,000 times – consistent with the ECRR's own 2003 model of radiological risk (The Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates for Radiation Protection Purposes: Regulators' Edition). According to Chris Busby, the ECRR's scientific secretary and visiting professor at the University of Ulster's school of biomedical sciences:

"The subordination of the WHO to IAEA is a key part of the systematic falsification of nuclear risk which has been under way ever since Hiroshima, the agreement creates an unacceptable conflict of interest in which the UN organisation concerned with promoting our health has been made subservient to those whose main interest is the expansion of nuclear power. Dissolving the WHO-IAEA agreement is a necessary first step to restoring the WHO's independence to research the true health impacts of ionising radiation and publish its findings."

Some birthdays deserve celebration but not this one. After five decades, it is time the WHO regained the freedom to impart independent, objective advice on the health risks of radiation.


From: Janet Newton < >
Date: May 28, 2009 11:18:40 AM CDT
Subject: Help with FCC Notice of Inquiry

To All -  Please forward to others who share your concern for stronger wireless safety policy in the United States.

The EMR Policy Institute is preparing comment to submit in the current Federal Communications Commission proceeding to develop the policy for providing high-speed internet service throughout the country -  FCC 09-31

A National Broadband Plan for Our Future.

We are asking for your help as we prepare our comment.  We want to submit to the FCC a substantial list of individuals who express concern that they will be required to live and work in close proximity to wireless internet infrastructure, i.e., transmitters/antennas is close proximity to homes, schools, day care facilities, senior living centers and nursing homes, etc. while the FCC's radiofrequency radiation exposure guidelines do not apply to this kind of long-term, continuous exposure to low-intensity radiofrequency radiation.

In the Notice of Inquiry at page 26, paragraph 68, the pertinent question is asked:

What aspects of broadband policy have improved consumer welfare, promoted competition, and led to technological innovation? Are there negative aspects of broadband that should be considered when assessing consumer welfare?  How can these aspects be minimized while maximizing the potential benefits?

The EMR Policy Institute's comment will include an in-depth discussion of the inadequacy of the FCC RF exposure guidelines based on the current science.  You do not need to address that in your individual statement.

What we need from interested individuals is a brief statement that you are concerned about having to live next to antennas and transmitters if wireless internet is built out in your local environment.  If you already live or work close to a cell tower site or antenna site on a neighboring building, be sure to tell us that.  Let us know if your children are is a school that is close to antennas.

Right now send us a brief statement by e-mail expressing your concern for your long-term health and safety.  You can note a specific issue such as electrohypersensitivity if it applies.

Include your name, physical address, mailing address if that differs, and phone number and the date.

We will call you and e-mail you a formal affidavit which will require your signature and needs to be notarized.

Please e-mail your brief statement as soon as possible.  Our comment has to be filed by June 8th.  We need to get your finished statement sent back to us during the first week of June.

Don't depend on someone else to participate.  We need as many statements as possible.

Thank you for your willingness to participate.

Best regards -  Janet Newton

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Communiqué SEMO 28 mai / Cancer teach-in / Interphone paper / Bee demise

Here the last news about Québec SEMO.
The english version of the petition for federal gov. is now on our web site at
François Therrien
Porte-parole du SEMO
Avez-vous signé la pétition SEMO sur le site internet ?

28 mai 2009                             

Collectif SEMO

Sauvons nos Enfants des Micro-Ondes .

Communiqué de presse


Objet: Micro-ondes et santé publique;


Le  SEMO demande officiellement à la  ministre de l'Éducation du Québec de suspendre l'installation des systèmes Wi-Fi dans les écoles . L'Allemagne, le Royaume-Uni et l'Autriche ont déjà interdit ces systèmes afin de protéger les enfants des micro-ondes provenant de cette technologie.


La France vient d'interdire le téléphone cellulaire dans les écoles primaires et entreprend de baisser les normes d'exposition dans plusieurs villes. ( Grenelle des ondes du 25 mai 09 )


Au Québec, Mario Roy éditorialiste de La Presse, cite le Principe de Précaution appliqué aux micro-ondes comme "relevant de la culture de la peur  ( 25 mai 09 )" . Nous l'invitons  à rencontrer tous ces gens qui découvrent du jour au lendemain la présence d' antennes cellulaires à proximité de leur demeure et de l'école de leurs enfants.  Il pourra expliquer à ces personnes qui se sont informer des effets néfastes, que l'exposition aux  micro-ondes est nécessaire pour  le bien de l'entreprise de communication et que les dommages collatéraux chez les humains sont normaux avec les nouvelles technologies.


À Châteauguay, actuellement une jeune famille qui vient d'acheter  sa maison de rêve en banlieue,  pour y élever ses jeunes enfants, découvre à peine un mois après leur déménagement, qu'il y aura une énorme antenne cellulaire de la Cie Rogers à moins de 25 mètres de leurs maison.  Une pétition contre cette installation en milieu résidentiel avec plus de 200 noms est en cours.  Maire et député se disent incapables de d'arrêter le projet de Rogers.


Une commission scolaire du Québec refuse l'installation d'une antenne cellulaire au nom du Principe de Précaution.


RÉFÉRENCES et AUTRES NOUVELLES sur le site Internet ""


Pour plus d'informations, n'hésitez pas à contacter le SEMO.


François Therrien

Porte-parole du SEMO

450 471 8371

Avez-vous signé la pétition SEMO sur le site internet



Literature Dept. Plans Cancer Teach-In
The UCSD Guardian Online - San Diego,CA,USA
Kheifets' review of Garland's report on the suspected cancer cluster has been delayed several weeks due to complications with obtaining necessary data. ...
See all stories on this topic



Christopher Wild, the director of IARC, announced today that the Interphone paper on the possible link between mobile phones and brain tumors has been submitted to a journal for publication.

Details at:

Louis Slesin
Louis Slesin, PhD
Editor, Microwave News
A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Phone: +1 (212) 517-2800; Fax: +1 (212) 734-0316
E-mail: <>
Internet: <>
Mail: 155 East 77th Street, Suite 3D
New York, NY 10075, U.S.A.



After the bees disappeared, because of ... (electromagnetic radiation? the jury is still out) - the effect is here already, e.g.

Cosmetics industry threatened by bee demise

Cosmetics which rely on the honeybee for production are facing a crisis as the British insect - whose numbers have dropped by 80% in some areas - is dying out.

According to the Co-operative Group, almost 4000 of the UK's favourite cosmetics are under threat, including 643 brands of mascara, 589 lipsticks and at least 453 moisturisers.

The cosmetics all rely on beeswax, a by-product of the pollination process. Beeswax is found in a wide range of cosmetics ingredients such as honey, wax, propolis and royal jelly. It acts as a preserve and a barrier against air and moisture.

Some of the products under threat are:

* Max Factor Lipfinity
* Nair hair removal products
* Wella Shockwaves Styling Cream
* L'Oreal Voluminous Volume Building Waterproof Mascara
* The Body Shop Shea Body Butter
* Nivea Visage Anti Wrinkle and Firming Cream

The Co-operative has launched a campaign to save the honeybee, called Plan Bee, encouraging people to plant their gardens in a way to help the bees thrive. Paul Monaghan, the Co-operative's Head of Social Goals said: 'Nature's number one pollinating machine appears to be breaking down and no one knows for sure why.

'The great thing, though, is that we can all do our bit to turn things around.'

Radiation levels from phones skyrocket / Cell phones banned from French elementary schools / Genetically Modified Foods


Radiation levels from phones skyrocket

The Swiss are exposed to ten times more radiation from mobile phones and other electronic devices than they were 20 years ago.

However, the authors of a study published on Wednesday said the average strength of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields, 0.22 volts per metre, was still well under the permitted limits in Switzerland.

Researchers from Bern and Basel universities measured the impact on individuals by strapping electromagnetic-detection devices to 166 volunteers.

The study found mobile phones, mobile phone masts and cordless phones were the main culprits for the increase. Electrosmog from radio and television stations and Wi-Fi signals plays only a minor role.

The authors said individuals are responsible for generating much of the radiation themselves and recommend that people cut down on calls from their mobile devices and buy phones with cords for home use to reduce exposure.

They added there was still insufficient evidence that this type of radiation was harmful, but the results of an international study looking into the impact on health were expected by the end of this year.

The Swiss study was funded by the National Science Foundation and has been published in the magazine, Environmental Research. with agencies


Au Revoir. Cell phones banned from French elementary schools

France is shutting down cell phone use in its elementary schools, due to health concerns. The government ban comes after a study on mobile phone use and wi-fi radiation.

Currently cell phone use is permitted on elementary school grounds, but not in classrooms.

The new mandate will shut down their useage completely. Under the measure, companies will also be required to supply phones that only work with a headset, in order to reduce exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

Some groups accuse the French government of not going far enough to protect children's health, and are pushing for new laws prohibiting all children 14 and under from using mobile phones.

They also want greater regulation on where cell phone towers can be placed.

© 2009 NBC
From Powerwatch

French Government imposes phone ban on all primary schools

In an unprecedented move, the French Government today announced their decision to take some strongly precautionary measures with regards to mobile telecommunications technology. From an outright ban of mobile phones in primary schools, to a requirement on operators to provide "stripped" down handsets only capable of texting or without a loudspeaker, this is a clear indication that in the absence of certainty, France is willing to act on the steadily increasing level of public concern.

Click here for the full news story


Genetically Modified Foods

According to the World Health Organization, Genetically Modified Organisms(GMOs) are "organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in such a way that does not occur naturally."1 
This technology is also referred to as "genetic engineering", "biotechnology" or "recombinant DNA technology" and consists of randomly inserting genetic fragments of DNA from one organism to another, usually from a different species. For example, an artificial combination of genes that includes a gene to produce the pesticide Cry1Ab protein (commonly known as Bt toxin), originally found in Bacillus thuringiensis, is inserted in to the DNA of corn randomly. Both the location of the transferred gene sequence in the corn DNA and the consequences of the insertion differ with each insertion. The plant cells that have taken up the inserted gene are then grown in a lab using tissue culture and/or nutrient medium that allows them to develop into plants that are used to grow GM food crops.2
Natural breeding processes have been safely utilized for the past several thousand years. In contrast, "GE crop technology abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years."3 
Despite these differences, safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food."4 However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.

There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility.5 The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.2,6,7,8,9,10,11
Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. 6,11 Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). 7,8,10 Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. 6,8,10 A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn.8 This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth9 and disruption of the intestinal immune system.6
Regarding biological gradient, one study, done by Kroghsbo, et al., has shown that rats fed transgenic Bt rice trended to a dose related response for Bt specific IgA. 11
Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.

In spite of this risk, the biotechnology industry claims that GM foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. However, a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed 12 academic studies and indicates otherwise: "The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn."12 However, it was further stated that this increase is largely due to traditional breeding improvements.

Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements.13 The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."13

Another often used definition originated from an environmental meeting in the United States in 1998 stating: "When an activity raises threats to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof (of the safety of the activity)."13 
With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks:

  • Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.
  • Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.
  • Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.
  • For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.

(This statement was reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine on May 8, 2009.)  Submitted by Amy Dean, D.O. and Jennifer Armstrong, M.D. 
Bibliography: Genetically Modified Foods Position Paper AAEM

  1. World Health Organization. (Internet).(2002). Foods derived from modern technology: 20 questions on genetically modified foods. Available from:
  2. Smith, JM. Genetic Roulette. Fairfield: Yes Books.2007. p.10
  3. Freese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews. Nov 2004. 21.
  4. Society of Toxicology. The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology. Toxicol. Sci. 2003; 71:2-8.
  5. Hill, AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceeding of the Royal Society of Medicine 1965; 58:295-300.
  6. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, et al. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON 810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric. Food Chem. 2008; 56(23):11533-11539.
  7. Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, et al. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean:effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008; 130:967-977.
  8. Velimirov A, Binter C, Zentek J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report-Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth. 2008.
  9. Ewen S, Pustzai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.Lancet. 354:1353-1354.
  10. Kilic A, Aday M. A three generational study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008; 46(3):1164-1170.
  11. Kroghsbo S, Madsen C, Poulsen M, et al. Immunotoxicological studies of genetically modified rice expression PHA-E lectin or Bt toxin in Wistar rats. Toxicology. 2008; 245:24-34.
  12. Gurain-Sherman,D. 2009. Failure to yield: evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Cambridge (MA): Union of Concerned Scientists.
  13. Lofstedt R. The precautionary principle: risk, regulation and politics. Merton College, Oxford. 2002.
  14. Eggen, D. Obama targets food safety: president announces new leaders, groups to upgrade laws. Washington Post. March 15, 2009. p. A02.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Hallberg / Johansson abstracts / Allergic to cell phones / France - mobile phones & children / Road safety investigation - MOBILE PHONES

Three more important documents from Prof. Olle Johansson and Orjan Hallberg
are attached:


Hallberg Ö, Johansson O, "Why is there a left laterality of melanoma and&#8232; breast cancer? 7th World Congress on Melanoma, Vienna, Austria, May 12-15, 2009 (abstr.)

Hallberg Ö, Johansson O, "Why is there a left laterality of melanoma and breast cancer?", 2nd World Cancer Congress 2009, Beijing, China, June 22-25, 2009 (abstr.)

Hallberg Ö, Johansson O, "Cancer and broadcasting radiation. Facts from radio engineering and cancer epidemiology", 2nd World Cancer Congress 2009, Beijing, China, June 22-25, 2009 (abstr.)

Please, also see this article:

Best regards

(Olle Johansson, assoc. prof.
The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm


The Royal Institute of Technology
100 44 Stockholm


Radiation Review: Some People May be 'Allergic' to Cell Phones, Computers

May 15th, 2009
By Lisa Zyga

How exactly does the radiation from electromagnetic fields (EMF) affect the human body? Is it possible that cell phones, computer monitors, TVs, and other electronic devices - which operate within current EMF safety standards - cause illnesses, or are the people who claim to be sensitive to these devices just paranoid? The topic is one of the most controversial subjects in technology today, having important consequences in politics, consumerism, human rights, and health costs.

Olle Johansson, an associate professor and head of the Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, has been investigating the effects of electromagnetic fields on human physiology since the early 80s. Johansson¹s research has led him to become an outspoken supporter of the view that the dangers of EMF radiation from our gadgets are real, and that existing safety standards, which are based on acute thermal effects only, do not adequately protect public health.

In a review to be published in an upcoming issue of Pathophysiology, Johansson has summarized the results from dozens of studies that have investigated the effects of EMFs on the immune system in particular. As he explains, EMFs can act like an allergen, disturbing immune function by eliciting various allergic and inflammatory responses. Johansson hopes that this review, along with the reviews in the extensive Bioinitiative Report
published in 2007 that have identified harmful effects from wireless technologies, will urge policymakers to create new public safety limits and
limit the future deployment of untested technologies.

³The paper acts like a very strong warning signal and should evoke action,² Johansson told, noting that the Bioinitiative Report has already had an influence. For example, in the ³European Parliament resolution of 4 September 2008 on the mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 (2007/2252(INI)),² the European Parliament acknowledges that exposure levels need to be based on biological factors, not just heating effects. A report from the European Parliament on February
23, 2009, ³On health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields,² also investigates stricter exposure limits.

In the current review, Johansson explains that the human immune system has evolved to deal with its known enemies, and not with electromagnetic³ allergens² (e.g. TV signals, radiowaves, microwaves from cell phones or WiFi, radar signals, X-rays, artificial radioactivity, etc.) which have been introduced within the last 100 years. Our immune systems have developed under the influence of the sun¹s radiation and the practically static geomagnetic field, he explains, but not under electromagnetic waves at other frequencies, or the magnetic and microwave pulses generated, for example, by cell phones.

As Johansson explains, antigens are substances that cause the immune system to react in an excessive manner, so that the immune system becomes damaging to local tissue and the entire body in general. Such hypersensitivity reactions can be caused by environmental disturbances that are small enough to enter the immune system. Examples can include dust and drugs, which can enter the respiratory tract or at site-specific locations. Another example is EMFs, which penetrate the entire body.

Different electronic devices produce EMFs that vary in strength, frequency, and pattern. While some studies have found associations between, for example, power lines and leukemia, or brain tumors and cell phones, other studies point out that no biological mechanism causing these illnesses has
been identified. As Johansson argues, many studies assume that the only biological mechanism that causes adverse effects is the acute heating of cells and tissues, although he says that non-thermal effects, such as EMFs acting as antigens in the immune system, can occur before heating can be detected, especially after long-term exposure.

In some of the studies that Johansson summarizes, people claim to suffer from subjective and objective symptoms when exposed to electronic devices. Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) affects an estimated 3% to 10% of the population, he says, and often leads to lost work and productivity. In Johansson¹s review, some studies hypothesize that people who claim adverse skin reactions after exposure to computer screens or mobile phones may actually have a correct avoidance reaction to the radiation. As he explains, the skin contains mast cells, which are known to react to external radiation such as radioactivity, X-rays, and UV light. Studies have found that skin samples of EHS people after radiation exposure have a higher number of mast cells in the upper dermis, and mast cells infiltrate other layers of the skin that don¹t normally have them. EMFs may also cause mast cells to ³degranulate,² releasing inflammatory substances that are involved in allergic hypersensitivity, itching, and pain. In previous theoretical studies, Johansson has proposed a model for how a proliferation of mast
cells (mastocytosis) could explain sensitivity to EMFs. As in an allergic reaction, EMFs likely affect people differently based on varying immune functions due to variations in genetic make-up.

Johansson points out that some of the studies in his and other¹s papers have not been included in surveys by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), suggesting that these organizations have ignored relevant research due to incorrect assumptions of the levels of EMFs that can have a biological influence.

Johansson¹s overall argument is that more research needs to be done on possible non-thermal mechanisms of EMFs¹ damage to the human body, and investigations into immune system response in particular could lead to the discovery of a specific mechanism for biological damage. Considering that hundreds of thousands of individuals are estimated to have electrohypersensitivity, there is a lot at stake in the issue, including how to accommodate people with this functional impairment. Understanding the biological effects of EMF also makes economic sense, Johansson says, in terms of future public health costs. Importantly, he argues for a biologically based EMF exposure limit that can be presumed to cause no adverse impacts on human health. A completely protective safety limit based
on today¹s information, he says, would be zero.

³Of course, philosophically we can discuss this forever, but practically one has to allow for a certain level of uncertainty if a specific gadget or technique has unique advantages,² Johansson said. ³If such unique advantages cannot be proven, then maybe the consumers should demand for a complete ban? It quickly boils down to if, for example, the future public health is less important than people's freedom today to use wireless technologies.²

More information: O. Johansson, Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic fields – A potentially underlying cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment,
Pathophysiology (2009), doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.03.004.

Copyright 2009
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of

Masts mailing list


The Times
May 26, 2009

Mobile phones to be banned in French primary schools to limit health risks

Charles Bremner in Paris

Are the French trying a sneaky classroom mobile ban?

Mobile telephones are to be banned from French primary schools and operators must offer handsets that allow only text messages under new government measures to limit the health risk for children.

Companies will also be required to supply telephones that work only with head-sets in order to limit the danger to the brain from electromagnetic radiation, Roselyne Bachelot, the Health Minister, said.

The measures, which emerged from a six-week review of mobile phone and wi-fi radiation, have been attacked as inadequate by campaigners who accuse the state of playing down dangers from phones and transmitter masts.

The campaign groups, which walked out on the government consultation on Monday, wanted a ban on mobile use by children under 14 and drastic measures to limit the power and location of transmitter masts.

The Government refused to act against masts, citing the absence of any evidence that they affected human or animal health. Experiments are to be carried out in three cities to test the feasibility of reducing the power of transmissions. The Government will limit children¹s use of mobiles pending the results of international and French studies later in the autumn. The Education Ministry is to issue a decree on the primary school ban. At the moment, most French schools only bar the use of mobile phones in classrooms.

The Government and telephone operators have been put on the defensive by the actions of hundreds of groups around the country that are demanding the removal of phone masts near schools, hospitals and homes. Radiation is commonly blamed for insomnia, headaches, fatigue and cancer. Libraries and other public spaces in several cities have switched off wi fi internet cover after reports that the radio waves are harmful.

The operators are especially alarmed by court orders to remove phone transmitters despite the absence of evidence that they cause harm.

The appeal court in Versailles shocked the industry in February when it ordered Bouygues, one of the three French operators, to dismantle a mast at Tassin-la-Demi-Lune, near Lyons, because families there feared for their health. The judges acknowledged that there was no existing evidence of a threat, but there was no guarantee that a risk did not exist. The ³feeling of anxiety² of the inhabitants was therefore justified, they said.

Their reasoning is known as the ³principle of precaution², a doctrine that was proclaimed by the Socialist Government in the late 1990s as an argument for refusing to import British beef after it had been declared safe. The principle, which is also behind France¹s rejection of genetically modified crops, is deplored by scientists and ministers in President Sarkozy¹s Government.

Martin Bouygues, whose family owns the telephone operator, said that the French state must decide ³whether it wants mobile telephones or not². Fear of unproven dangers risks taking France back to the Middle Ages, said Jean de Kervasdoue, a former national director of French hospitals. ³It¹s dangerous thinking . . . like the medieval inquisitors who demanded that heretics prove their innocence,² he said. ³You cannot always prove your innocence.²



Road safety investigation - MOBILE PHONES
Think you're safe while making a mobile phone call while driving? Think again. A laboratory simulation showed that the risks are greater than you might imagine.

By Mike Rutherford

Last Updated: 5:45PM BST 22 May 2009

Picture the scene: an exasperated pub landlord asks the police for assistance after disturbance involving two of his regulars. One has imbibed several beers and is drunk. The other has been sipping orange juice and is sober. A cop arrives and diplomatically persuades them to quietly head off home in opposite directions. Job done, thinks the officer.

But then he sees the intoxicated customer climbing behind the wheel of a car before driving it away. At the same time he spots the sober customer driving off with the wheel in one hand and a mobile phone in the other.

The policeman can only pursue one offender, so who's it to be - the drunk driver or the motorist on the phone? I'm certain that he who drives sozzled is a more dangerous beast than he who motors along while on the phone. Or at least, I used to be certain of that. If we're to believe the giant, highly respected Transport Research Laboratory, tucked away in the forests of Berkshire, using a mobile phone while driving is even more hazardous than drink-driving.

TRL researchers don't disapprove of mobile phones. They just want all drivers to switch them off and ignore them until journey's end. And it's not just hand-held mobiles that the organisation has a major issue with. Surprisingly, it concludes that hands-free versions are almost as dangerous. To prove the point, TRL invited me in for the night (our session started at 9pm) to let me loose on its latest, full-sized driving simulator. With help and funding from the car insurance giant Direct Line, this facility is doing more than any other in Britain - and possibly the world - to ram home the message that driving and phone calls don't mix.

My first solo run on the rolling road-based simulator was deliberately free of interruptions (I didn't even have the car radio on) and I was being closely monitored by senior researcher, Dr Nick Reed, from a neighbouring room. Dr Reed's conclusion was that I "drove very well". So far so good. But minutes later, on my second run, I unwittingly transformed myself into a bad, dangerous driver by talking on a hands-free mobile. During a lengthy call, Dr Reed observed that I was "less able" to deal with basic driving tasks and that my lateral positioning (where I placed the car on the road) deteriorated. I lost the ability to maintain constant speed and, worse still, the longer the call went on the faster I got, at one point reaching 85mph on a simulated motorway run.
Dr Reed has put countless guinea pig drivers in his simulator but he observed that my behaviour was particularly "unusual" and "impatient" when I attempted deep and long phone conversations while driving. He said that if I'd been on the road instead of in a simulator, I would have been four times more likely to have an accident on my second drive than my first one, which had no interruptions.

If you believe the research results, there is no doubt that using a hand-held phone while driving is potentially lethal and using a hands-free phone is almost as dangerous. Dr Reed has plenty of data to back up his views. The Mobile Phone Report by Direct Line, based on TRL research, spells out the dangers with alarming clarity.

The majority of drivers aged 21-45 who took part in the study admitted that it was "easier" to drive drunk than while using a mobile. The tests proved - in line with my own - that while drunk drivers are worse at staying in lane, drivers distracted by mobiles are much worse at maintaining speed and a safe distance from vehicles in front. Drivers' reaction times were, on average, 30 per cent slower when talking on a hand-held mobile compared with being drunk, and nearly 50 per cent slower than under normal driving conditions.

If that's not enough, drivers using a hands-free or hand-held phone miss "significantly" more road signs than when over the drink-drive limit.

On average i t takes hand-held mobile users half a second longer to react to a hazard, says the study. At 70mph this means travelling an extra 46 feet
(14 metres) before reacting.

The distractions caused by making or receiving a call while driving aren't as obvious as you might think, and can be broken down into four categories, says the Direct Line report. They can be visual, auditory, mental (cognitive) or physical - or a combination of all four at once.

To make matters worse, drivers often take their eyes off the road when making and receiving calls. But isn't talking on your phone the same as talking to a passenger? No. Passengers tend to let the conversation ebb and flow, enabling the driver to concentrate on negotiating hazards.

Company car drivers are the worst offenders for phoning while driving, says the report and it's a myth that a quick call "doesn't matter".

A quarter of all mobile phone calls are made from vehicles and about 10 million drivers have admitted using a hand-held mobile while driving.

Frighteningly, up to one in four young drivers use their mobile to send text messages, guaranteeing maximum physical distraction.

New evidence from the AA this week suggests that drivers are only too aware of the phoning-while-driving problem, but that many are unwilling to change their behaviour. The motoring organisation's latest research shows that two thirds of drivers expect to go to jail if they cause a fatal accident while using a phone. But at any one time 100,000 drivers are using a hand-held phone.

So is a driver who's talking on the phone really more dangerous than a drunk driver? I have my doubts. But either way, TR L has gathered apparently damning evidence that proves using a phone while driving is scarily close to the top of the danger league along with other serious motoring crimes and transgressions such as drunk driving, tailgating, travelling inappropriately fast, failing to wear a seatbelt and falling asleep at the wheel.
The Government's tired, over-simplistic "Speed Kills" campaign gives the impression that drivers who aren't speeding will be safe.

Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. You show me a motorist who's driving under the speed limit but talking on the phone and I'll show you a person who's heading to the scene of his own accident.


The fixed penalty for using a hand-held mobile phone is £60 plus three points. If the police or the driver chooses to take a case to court rather than use a fixed penalty notice, the maximum fine is £1,000, or £2,500 for drivers of vans, lorries, buses and coaches.

A Department for Transport-endorsed research study says: "There is strong experimental evidence that engaging in a mobile phone conversation impairs
drivers' ability to react to potentially hazardous road situations. The impairment appears to be greater than that associated with listening to a radio."
Motorists can also be fined up to £2,500 and given from three to nine points in court if convicted of Careless and Inconsiderate Driving. This could include using a hand-held mobile phone but also actions such as eating, drinking, smoking, or even fiddling with a radio or satellite navigation device while driving.

If these actions led to a death on the road, the driver could be charged with Causing Death by Careless Driving, an offence carrying an unlimited
fine and up to five years in prison.

Police can opt to prosecute motorists caught using hand-held mobile phones under the last two charges, if they believe a fixed penalty of £60 does not reflect the seriousness of the offence.

Circulated by Sarah Dacre

Monday, May 25, 2009

Dr. Martin Blank to appear on Canada AM / Radio EMF show / France, Government's official statement / Less deadly DECT phones

Hi All

Prior to the WEEP press conference in Toronto on Wednesday:

Dr Martin Blank, EMF researcher and co-author of the Bioinitiative report will be appearing on CTV's Canada AM, Wednesday May 27th, at 8:10am eastern.

From- Dr. David Fancy
Department of Dramatic Arts
Brock University
St Catharines
L2S 3A1
905-688-5550, ext 3584


Take part in a radio discussion about EMFs

On Tuesday 26th May from 2 to 4 in the afternoon (Newfoundland time -this is one and a half hours earlier than Eastern time in North America)
there will be a discussion on WWW.VOCM.COM (radio by internet).

Use the link 'Listen Live' and listen to the show by computer. The discussion will be about powerlines & transformers and the fact that they are causing cancer and other serious illnesses in people.

Anyone is welcome to call in and take part in the show.

The telephone number is 1- 888-590-8626

France Special Edition in Progress

BioInitiative Petition 0.6V/m = 10 000 !! and Grenelle (Phone masts)

Government's official statement this afternoon:

- First official statement to the adoption of the recommendation BioInitiative

(however BioInitiative name was not pronounced)


- Mobile ban in primary schools,
- Advertising bans mobile phones for young people,
- Mobile phones that only work with SMS.

- Mobile phones strictly prohibits least 6 years, etc . . .

No reference to ICNIRP, we have just won a battle but not war !!!!!

From Next Up


Some interesting developments regarding DECT phones for the Hong Kong market.


VTech environmentally friendly cordless phone reduces radio ... Tech's ECO DECT phone series has an ECO Mode function that reduces the overall radio frequency power by 99.9% when it is charging. In talk
mode, the handset ...

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Open Letter to Health Canada / Video about brain tumours and mobile phones / Cellphones as parents' helpers

Open Letter to Health Canada

February 24, 2009

The Honorable Leona Aglukkaq

Minister of Health

Health Canada

Dear Minister:

I am a Tsawwassen, BC resident living under the High Voltage Overhead Transmission Line (HVOTL) on the Right-Of-Way (ROW). The HVOTL is being upgraded to 230 kV x 1,200 megawatts (MW) - up from 138kV x 50 MW - under the Vancouver Island Transmission Reinforcement (VITR) Project. To help the project, Health Canada took a position on electromagnetic field (EMF) by declaring "the scientific evidence is not strong enough to conclude that typical exposures cause health problems." As a result, the BC Transmission Corporation (BCTC) chose 833 milligauss (mG), the World Health Organization's (WHO's) EMF exposure limit as their system design guideline. However, 833 mG is derived from the measured thermal effects of short-term (24 -hour) EMF exposure on biological organisms. In the process of adopting this 833 mG recommendation made by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the former WHO EMF project manager, Repacholi allowed utility companies' deep involvements as reported in

WHO & Industry: EMF Partners , received utility company payments and became a consultant for power companies shortly after retiring from the position.(Microwave News.)

While Health Canada is doing nothing to protect the general public, other countries are working hard to save their citizens from the WHO's licensed-to-kill 833 mG EMF exposure limit. After reviewing more than 2,000 reports, an international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (BioInitiative) has released its comprehensive report on August 27, 2007 as an alternative to the ICNIRP/WHO guidelines. The BioInitiative recommends 1 mG for inhabitable space adjacent to all new or upgraded power lines and 2 mG for all other new constructions. (

The BioInitiative Report)

In our cases, the power line EMF is already 20 times over 1 mG recommendation and more than 50 times that of normal houses. The European Parliament is greatly concerned about the BioInitiative report on EMFs. It has voted 522 to 16 to recommend tighter safety standards. In light of the growing body of scientific evidence implicating cell phone use in brain tumors, the Parliament states, "The limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields [EMFs] which have been set for the general public are obsolete.

" (EU looks to tighten mobile emission regulation and Create Healthy Homes) It should be remembered that radio frequency amplitude modulation (am) could produce effects similar to that of power frequency (PF). "Without am there was no effect although the RFR intensity was the same" (SECTION 14 EVIDENCE FOR DISRUPTION)

Dennis Kucinich, Domestic Policy Committee Chairman wrote to Kevin Martin, FCC Chairman on Nov. 3, 2008, "The NAS Report support the NTP's conclusion that the research record upon which FCC's RF Safety Guidelines are based does not adequately safeguard the public from non-thermal chronic exposures."

(US Congress letter to FCC). The Bamberg Appeal sent to the President Obama on February 12, 2009 states, "Since immediately, after digital television stations had started transmitting, adverse health effects have occurred, the review of the Guidelines announced by the ICNIRP is imperative." (Warning Against Adverse Health Effects)

In the UK, the Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs (SAGE) was established and equally funded by the Department of Health, the Electricity Industry and the charity organization Children with Leukemia. The onset of childhood leukemia at above 4 mG was implicated in the epidemiology and it requires 60 m from 275 kV line for the magnetic field to fall below 4 mG. On the basis of these, SAGE put out the first report on April 27, 2007. "We have therefore identified the best-available option for obtaining significant exposure reduction (in fact, it avoids new future exposures that would otherwise occur). This is a restriction on new homes and schools close to existing lines, and on new lines close to existing homes and schools." The suggested distance is 60 m from 275 KV line. (HREG - SAGE)

The 5 MP (UK) Cross-Party Inquiry was formed in 2006 to consider the evidence for an association between EMF from HVOTL and an increased risk of childhood leukemia. The Inquiry stated, "the Government recognise the potential risks to children's health caused by exposure to EMF and introduce a moratorium on the building of new homes and schools within at least 60 metres of existing HVOTL of 275 kV and 400 kV and on the building of new HVOTL within 60 metres of existing homes and schools."

( :) In our cases, the distance is barely over one third of this recommendation.

On November 17, 2008, Microwave News wrote, "A couple of weeks ago, a group led by

Martin Röösli at Switzerland's University of Bern reported that people living within 50 meters of a high-voltage power line were more likely to die with Alzheimer's. The longer they lived near a 220-380 kV power line, the greater the risk: After 15 years, the odds of dying with Alzheimer's were double the expected rate. It is this striking dose-response —with the risk increasing over time- that makes the Swiss study compelling." (Power-Line EMFs: Alzheimer's)

Dear Minister, you must pay special attentions to these three landmark court rulings. For the first time ever in France, a power company was ordered to compensate cattle farmers for EMF damages to animals. On November 14, 2008, AFP (Agence France Presse) reported, "In ordering the management of the French company RTE (responsible for the distribution of electricity) to pay almost 400,000 euros to cattle farmers, the courts have established for the first time that there is a link between the effects of electromagnetic radiation from a very high voltage power line and symptoms of diseases among animals"

(An RTE power line of very high voltage) Similarly, telephone company Bouygues Telecom was ordered on February 4, 2009 by a Versailles appeals court to dismantle cellphone towers in the Lyons area on the basis of the precautionary principle and the potential health risk for nearby residents. The ruling is significant because it draws on the latest research such as the BioInitiative Report as well as recent doctors' Appeals of Salzburg (Austria), Freiburg and Bamberg (Germany) and Helsinki (Finland). (, (Versailles Appeal Court Judgement 4 February 2009 )

Vaculuse Martin reported on February 22, 2009, "At Chateauneuf-du-Page, the relay phone mast belong to the mobile phone operator SFR must be demolished. The judge acknowledges 'a potential health risk'" "Judje orders demolition"

Dear Minister, I have briefly shown that: large scale research found low-level EMFs are health hazards, the SAGE and MPs recommend a 60 m distance from power lines and the courts ruled power line EMFs and cell phone antenna radiations are health hazards based on the BioInitiative Report. Under such circumstances, it is very wrong for bureaucratic and industrial scientists and engineers, including those from Health Canada, to force the public to accept that long-term (60 year) < 833 mG exposure is safe. I am hereby going to present my explanations, based on scientific principles, about how low-level EMFs act on biological organisms. Please also note that the fundamental mistakes made in applying science, physics and engineering to the biological system is that the human body has been treated as an electrical or electronic device without life:

  1. Root mean square (RMS) is used instead of the peak-to-peak.
  2. Most Gauss meters measure RMS value, which is equivalent to the DC amplitude that can deliver the same amount of power to a resistive load. But to the living cell in our body, the peak-to-peak amplitude is more meaningful than the RMS value. For a PF sine wave, the peak is equal to 1.414 times the RMS value and the peak-to-peak is twice the peak value. The crest factor (CF), 1.414 is defined as the peak amplitude divided by the RMS value. (59886916en Better RMS) . For example 150 mG, the calculated maximum EMF under the power lines, will translate into a 424 mG swing ( +150 x 1.414). (This 1- phase approximation can be applicable to a 3-phase system with vertical configuration because the closest line will give the prominent peak value.)
  3. Geomagnetic field (GMF) is ignored.
  4. The GMF has been thought to minimally affect living organisms. However, many symptoms related to the combination of PF magnetic field (PFMF) and GMF are reported in Geomagnetic Fields. Also the risk of childhood leukemia may be related to the combinations of AC and GMF. (Hypothesis: the risk of childhood leukemia). Due to the GMF, the PFMF oscillation becomes lopsided as follows: When the power line magnetic field is parallel to the GMF (500 mG), the resulting magnetic field is 712 mG (500 mG + 212 mG), and 288 mG (500 mG - 212 mG) in the opposite direction. This approximation is very close to the case in Vancouver area where GMF dip angle is almost 75 degree, which reduces the dependence on line directions.
  5. Power companies do not consider high frequency (HF) noises from power lines as health hazards.
  6. The HF sources are things such as power line carriers; corona discharge; HF inductions from radio, TV, cell phone signals and equipment operations; lightning; power line radiation amplified (~1000 times) by magnetosphere and ionosphere; and so on. Power lines are neither perfect HF transmission lines nor antennas, so the HF noises collected by the power lines re-radiate in short distances. These noise waves are aggregated to generate amplitudes higher than individual amplitudes (ICNIRP Statement GUIDANCE). Because of the pulsed nature of HF noises, the CF would be much larger than that of a sine wave posing health hazards. Assuming HF measurement is x mG and CF is 20, the peak HF is 20x mG.

  1. The WHO uses a flawed assumption
  2. . This assumption is that for any incoming EMF signal to affect cell functions, it must have a signal-to-intrinsic noise ratio greater than one, the best defence of the WHO against the reports of low-level health hazards. (The intrinsic noises in a cell are thermal, shot and 1/f noises.-EHC 238 Ch. 4). Their claim even contradicts the ICNIRP Statement that explains the summation of EMFs. (ICNIRP Statement), (ICNIRP Statement GUIDANCE). The cell is not an electronic device designed to retrieve useful signals and does not need to discriminate between signals and noises. In fact, it is quite the contrary: any signal coming into the cell will combine with the intrinsic noises to affect particle motions according to Fleming's left hand rule, and subsequently the biological system. The Revolt editor agreed with my argument in Revolt news255 . The diagram in Fig. 1 below was borrowed from Enrico Simonotto et al's work to visualize my claim, combination of two waves.

Threshold (Cell Homeostasis)

Signal (Power line EMFs)

Super-threshold EMFs: Body EMF noises combined with power line EMFs

Fig.1 Signal (sub-threshold power line EMFs) + Noise (sub-threshold body EMFs) = Super-threshold EMFs

As a consequence, the total EMF swings from (712 + X + Y) mG in the geomagnetic field direction to (288 – X -Y) mG in the opposite direction, where X is the total HF and Y is the total intrinsic noise). Ordinary Gauss meters cannot detect this elevated and lopsided field, but the body's cells will detect it very well because ions in it will be deflected to one side much more than the other. It takes only 10 mG to deflect the electron beam of a VDU sufficiently to cause the picture on the screen to wobble. The childhood leukemia onset threshold, 4 mG, appears to be >12 mG peak enough to deflect electrons in the cell. Accordingly, this elevated and lopsided magnetic field combined with the body noises may help explain many biological mechanisms at very low sub-guideline EMFs including reduced adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production in mitochondrial electron transport chain (ETC)

(Microwave effects on energy metabolism of rat brain), the dislodge of structurally important calcium ions from the cell membrane causing a leakage of toxic materials (, (The Cell Phone and The Cell:), caused leakage of albumin across the blood-brain barrier (EMFacts Consultancy) and other such effects.

Thanks to Health Canada's assurance, BCTC erected 120-foot tall power poles about 75 feet away from Tsawwassen residents' homes (as well as a school and senior home) as shown in Picture 1 &2, and abandoned two perfect alternative routes as shown in Pictures 3 and 4. As a shabby aftermath solution, the BC government offers a buy-out scheme, which is similar to the Communists' 'Purge' but disguised under a democratic system. This forced move created more anxiety, fear, anguish, and distress over losing homes before finding proper places, amongst residents living along the ROW especially the elderly who have planned to live in their homes for their lives. These residents are squeezed in between the EMF dangers and the forced move.

Dear Minister, WHO defines health as the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. Many of ROW people are not healthy because of Health Canada's irresponsible EMF position.

I ask you to direct Health Canada to answer my letter if all the scientists behind the BioInitiative Report, the recommendations of SAGE and 5 MP Cross Party Inquiry, 522 European Parliament members, the judges' rulings and my scientific arguments are wrong. If Health Canada cannot say they are all wrong, please have them account for their position statement and rectify the situation immediately by issuing the right statement that "even low level power line EMFs are health hazards"


Dr. Kyong H. Nam

Ph. D. – High Power Laser, P. Eng. – Alberta

Tsawwassen Resident, 604-943-1947


From: Enrico
To: Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 11:15 PM
Subject: April edition 2009 Industry update ...


I do not know if you have seen this before.

Best Regards,
Enrico Grani


Hi All

The next story should be added to the insanity column.  With all that is known about microwave radiation and how it causes severe health problems, how could people subject their children to cell phone emissions.  Will these children reach their twenties before developing cancer?  Should the parents be charged with child abuse?

Martin Weatherall


Cellphones as parents' helpers: they teach letters, listen for crying babies   

May 21, 2009  

Rose Hanson  

COLUMBUS, Ohio – When Annamarie Saarinen needed to soothe her ailing daughter, she used a rattle – downloaded to her iPhone. 
Jeff Hilimire uses a white noise application on his phone to make shushing noises for his infant daughter. And Tracie Stier-Johnson lets her young daughters answer trivia questions on her phone while waiting in the doctor's office or at parent-teacher conferences. 
"You can only play 'I spy' so many times," said Stier-Johnson, 40, of Racine, Wis., whose daughters like the Who Wants to be a Millionaire game she loaded on her iPhone. 
Parents have handed their cellphones to children as distractions since they were invented, and toy versions tap into kids' love of pushing beeping buttons and playing with electronic gadgets like the ones their parents have. But a mushrooming number of applications on smartphones have parents using them more than ever as modern baby rattles. 
These wired-up phones allow parents to play number and letter games with their preschoolers or to get a few minutes of quiet when children watch movie clips on a plane or while waiting for a restaurant table. 
Jenny Reeves, 34, of San Antonio, lets her boys – ages 3 1/2 and two – type words or flip through pictures of themselves and their dog on her BlackBerry when they have to pass time without books. Her older son is learning to send emails to his grandparents and dad that say, "I love you." 
"It's almost as good as lollipops," Reeves said. 
People also are making their phones parenting helpers, downloading applications to turn them into impromptu baby monitors, to research nutrition information in grocery aisles and to check their babies' growth rate compared to average measurements. 

Hilimire, a 33-year-old father from Atlanta, started putting his iPhone to use before his daughter was born, when he timed contractions with the phone's stopwatch and downloaded software that showed the size of the growing baby. 
Now when his infant daughter gets fussy in the car or during a walk, he puts his iPhone in her carrier to play the free application called White Noise Lite. "It immediately relaxes her," he said. 
Stier-Johnson leaves her iPhone near her sleeping three-year-old daughter to listen for her to wake when she sits near her pool, which is out of range for her regular baby monitor. An application she downloaded prompts her phone to call her home number or her husband's iPhone when her daughter makes a noise. 
And the phones have been put to work in times of crisis, too. Saarinen and her husband Paul, of Minneapolis, used a program called Cardio Calc on his iPhone to track their infant daughter Eve's health information during a recent stay in a Boston hospital for heart surgery to repair problems including a leaking valve. 
A free rattle application, Baby Rattle Bab Bab Lite, showed spinning graphics and chimes when Eve moved it around. It stopped her most intense crying when she was coming off pain medication, Annamarie said. 
Smartphones can be an expensive child diversion, to be sure. Some parents set rules for kids to try to prevent damage, such as no shaking and no carrying the phone on hard surfaces in case it's dropped. 
And some have trouble keeping their phones away from the children, or worry about limiting phone time once the children move into elementary school. 
Brooks Duncan, of Vancouver, B.C., has to hide his iPod touch from his two-year-old. "If he sees it, he'll go for it and want to play with it," said Duncan, 35, who bought the device when his children started arguing over their grandfather's iPhone. 
Sascha Seegan, lead mobile device analyst for PCMag's network of websites, said a good chunk of available apps are useless. Apple's App Store has 35,000 applications for iPhone and iPod touch. sells 140,000 titles for various phone brands, and a couple hundred of those are aimed at parents and young children, said Alex Bloom, president and chief executive officer. 
Seegan suggests reading user ratings online and professional reviews, along with checking that all the application's features work smoothly and quickly. But he doesn't let his daughter, now three, play with the phone yet. 
"Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I wouldn't use a $300 baby rattle," he said. 
Still, other parents are stunned – and impressed – when their toddlers quickly figure out how to operate the phones, sometimes faster than their moms and dads. 
When Byron Turner left his new iPhone alone with his 4 1/2-year-old twin boys for 25 minutes, they had figured out what many of the phone's touch-screen buttons did and started taking photos. The boys, now six, have improved their spelling with a hangman game and use an application that makes their parents' phones sound like lightsabers, said Turner, 46, of Grass Valley, Calif. 
Duncan said his children can find what they want by browsing through icons. 
"To be able to do that before you're four years old, just think what they're going to do," he said.