Thursday, February 25, 2010

2010 Electro Magnetic Awareness Month / Warning labels / WiFi Health Risks / Portland cell towers / EMR lectures / 'Water tank' cell tower / Radiation Errors

Electromagnetic Radiation Event Planning Kit

magnetic radiation is of widespread epidemic prevalence, public awareness of the disabling health effects of common electromagnetic exposures and ways to ...

Dear Readers and Partners,

Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation affects 9.8 million men, women, and children of all races in America (Levallois, 2002). Even though sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is of widespread epidemic prevalence, public awareness of the disabling health effects of common electromagnetic exposures and ways to manage and accommodate sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation remains limited.

Electromagnetic Radiation Awareness Month, May 2010, bestows upon us a great opportunity to work towards increased public awareness of sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation.

Organizations around the world have put forth great effort to establish May of each year as Electromagnetic Radiation Awareness Month. Many are working to improve awareness and appropriate healthcare around the world. Activities are organized around the month of May and continue throughout the year. MCS America plays a special role during this time and is committed to promoting awareness of electromagnetic fields which may cause sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation and trigger reactions in those with sensitivity.

This entire month of May is dedicated to planning for individuals and organizations in the U.S. to hold local events during Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation Awareness Month and beyond. You will find numerous ideas for promoting awareness, educating others, increasing recognition, and planning community events. There are many editable sample materials which may be downloaded and used locally.

Electromagnetic radiation awareness events are expected to take place across the United States this May. MCS America can help publicize your event on news feeds, blogs, newspapers, our newsletter, and other venues. Submit your event to . We value your feedback on the usefulness of the sample materials and welcome suggestions for future materials.

On behalf of MCS America, I would like to thank you for any and all efforts towards increased awareness in your locality. We look forward to assisting you in any way we can. Working together, we can help America to take control of electromagnetic exposures and eradicate sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation.


Lourdes Salvador

MCS America


Guest commentary: Cell phones need warning labels for safety of Maine residents

By State Rep. Andrea Boland

Thursday, February 25, 2010

What goes on in Maine on March 2 may very well influence what goes on around the world.

The Health & Human Services Committee of the Maine State Legislature will hear a bill requiring warning labels on cell phones. Internationally acclaimed experts will testify on their own independent scientific findings that show cell phones can cause brain cancer, with children and pregnant women being at the greatest risk. Industry-funded scientists will argue cell phones are safe. Other countries have taken action to protect their citizens. The U.S. has not. People want to know when that is going to change.

The question has long been asked in Washington, but the answer will come from the great state of Maine. Do cell phones need warning labels?

Cell phones are everywhere. This legislation does not seek to ban them. They are an integral tool in our day-to-day lives. Safety is the issue. Individuals and businesses need accurate product information.

Cell phones had no safety testing before they were introduced into the market in the early 1980s, and the FDA did not ask for it. This is shocking. It defies common sense and violates our trust in the systems we believe to be in place to protect us. Cell phones are radiation-emitting devices. We are expected to hold them against our heads, and buy them for our children. Users number in the billions. The industry and government have known about the potential risk for years, and withheld that information from us. Cell phones need warning labels.

The proposed warning label states the following: "Warning: This device emits electromagnetic radiation, exposure to which may cause brain cancer. Users, especially children and pregnant women, should keep away from the head and body." It includes a graphic showing the penetration of the radiation plume into a child's head. Experts advise to use the speakerphone, a good headset, hold at a distance, turn off when not in use, keep out of clothes pockets, and, for children, not to keep them on under the pillow at night.

Even as technology advances and clever advertising attracts our young people, with "apps" of every imaginable sort, their smaller heads, thinner skulls, and fast-developing brains and bodies make them most vulnerable to the effects of the low level radiation pulsing against them. What is marketed as the epitome of cool may be generating more harm than style. Adults need to act. Experts predict a pandemic of brain tumors in coming years if we don't. Our future demands it. Representative democracy demands it. That is why I have introduced this bill.

Deciding to bring this legislation wasn't hard, once I'd done my research. There is an ocean of scientific knowledge washing around us. Most of us just haven't thought to plunge its depths. The information was all readily available from libraries, experts, studies, the Internet, and actions of other legislative bodies. I have consulted with renowned authorities, reached out to U.S. Congress people, invited input from industry and retailers, Maine health authorities and physicians, the Governor, and those who have researched and worked in this field for many years. I have listened to heartbreaking personal experiences. As a state representative, I am committed to serving the best interests of our people. Cell phones need warning labels.

Citizens reasonably expect government to oversee the safety of products. The industry is obliged to assure their safety before marketing them. That didn't happen. One would hope the FDA would insist.

That didn't happen. Independent studies in other countries showed there was a health risk associated with cell phone use. In the U.S. there was a major, $28 million study, performed in the 1990s under FDA rules, that revealed health risks from cell phone use, but no government action was taken. Even with brain cancer the leading cause of children's death from cancer in our country, no research into the causes has been conducted. One has to ask, "Why?" We are sadly lagging behind other countries, like England, France, Austria, Australia, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Israel, India, China, and Russia. Industry, government, scientists, and the public can work together for better awareness and solutions. Cell phones need warning labels.

Maine is the first state in the union upon which each new day dawns. It is my fervent hope that industry and government will greet the dawn of March 2 with a commitment to put people first, when Maine becomes the first state to acknowledge that cell phones need warning labels.

State Rep. Andrea Boland represents District 142 in Sanford.


WiFi health -
At a recent public meeting several experts spoke about the health risks associated with wireless technology.


Portland City Council calls out feds on FCC rule that speeds up reviews of cell towers

By Janie Har, The Oregonian
February 24, 2010, 9:14PM


Ross William Hamilton/The OregonianA cell phone tower sits near the corner of Southeast Powell Boulevard and Milwaukie Avenue in Portland. The City Council voted Wednesday to push back on federal regulations that speeds up the review time line for new towers. The Portland City Council took a swipe at the wireless industry Wednesday, voting to join a federal challenge to an FCC rule that requires speedier reviews of new cell towers.

This could be your average case of local control versus national might. But the unanimous council vote also comes amid public unease over the looks, noise and potential safety hazards of cell phones and wireless equipment.

A showing of a new documentary, "Full Signal," about the cell towers' effects on people's health attracted several hundred viewers, including Portland Commissioner Nick Fish, to the Hollywood Theatre on Sunday.

In Northeast Portland, residents have banded together to fight a proposal by wireless company Clearwire to convert an existing utility pole into a 60-foot communications tower.

The issue isn't going away, as consumers demand anytime, anywhere, crystal-clear sound and speed on cell phones and smart devices.

"Portland isn't against having cell phones, and I understand you need to have some reasonable coverage,"Fish said. "But the fact that the playing field is so tilted in favor of industry ... that's outrageous."

In 2007, CTIA-The Wireless Association petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to set strict timelines on new cell towers, citing foot-dragging by some municipalities. Last November, the FCC complied.

The "shot clock" issued by the FCC mandates 30 days for an initial local review to check the completeness of an application for a new cell tower.

It also sets a 90-day deadline for review of applications to attach to an existing tower and a 150-day deadline for new cell towers. An applicant can sue if the local land-use board fails to comply.

Portland, following state law, allows for 120 days to review all land-use applications, including wireless stations.

Mary Beth Henry, acting director of the city's Office of Cable Communications and Franchise Management, called the FCC ruling "capricious" and an unprecedented move by the federal government to take on the most local of issues -- zoning.

"They like a one-size-fits-all," she said of wireless companies, "so they can steamroll on through."

Brian Josef, director of regulatory affairs in Washington, D.C., for CTIA, said he's puzzled by the council's action given that the 120-day deadline is shorter than the 150 days allotted in the new rule.

"There have been instances in New Jersey where in one particular town it took over six years for an initial decision, and nine years before a tower was built," he said.

"That's not to say that all zoning boards are obstructionists, it's just that there are enough of these bad apples" that the industry needed federal backup, he said.

The resolution adopted by the Portland council authorizes the city attorney's office to represent Portland in a petition by the city of Arlington, Texas, in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the FCC. The council approved an initial amount of $1,000 for the challenge.

The vote was unanimous, with Commissioners Fish, Dan Saltzman and Randy Leonard voting yes. Commissioner Amanda Fritz was visiting family in England, and Mayor Sam Adams was in Washington, D.C.

Leonard went so far as to propose a strict map of where wireless facilities can and can't go in the city.
Last year, the council asked Congress to lift a federal pre-emption on local governments' ability to study the impacts on health caused by cell phones and wireless equipment.

There are roughly 900 wireless facilities in Portland, including antennae on existing structures such as rooftops and water tanks. The number includes about 300 cell towers.

A proposal by Clearwire to convert a utility pole in the Beaumont-Wilshire neighborhood wouldn't fall under the FCC shot clock, because it's an attachment on a utility pole in the public right of way.

Those are regulated by the cable franchise office, which collects fees from utility companies.

But the debate has spurred the same concerns over health and noise and quality of life.

"What the City Council is trying to do, to get local control to some extent over the construction of these towers and this equipment, is the right way to go," said Al Ellis, president of the neighborhood association.

Debra Havins, a spokeswoman for Clearwire, says the Kirkland, Wash., company is not eager to upset neighbors. "But when we go into an area and build our network there, it's because there's a demand for it."
-- Janie Har


Chiropractor to give lectures about dangers of electromagnetic fields

Feb 25, 2010

By: Sudbury Northern Life Staff

Chiropractor Dr. Howard Fisher will give free seminars about the threat of electromagnetic fields from cell phones and other sources at the Radisson Hotel in Sudbury Feb. 26 from 7:30-9 p.m. and Feb. 27 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.

"Presenting compelling evidence of the current dangers posed to adult and child health from electro magnetic fields, Dr Fisher's seminar highlights both the problems and potential solutions and places the onus squarely where it belongs and discusses the startling fact that we may be facing 430 million brain tumours globally over the next ten years," stated a press release.

"On a mission to educate and enlighten the world about the toxic factors that exist in our environment and their direct relationship to our health; Dr. Fisher's seminar makes professionals and the public aware of the omnipresent threat in our immediate environment."

The press release states that a review of current literature reveals a relationship between electromagnetic radiation and DNA damage; including cancer, leukemia, neurodegenerative disorders, blood brain barrier leakage, the autism spectrum, hormonal disruptions to serum levels of melatonin and cortisol, and most recently a direct relationship to brain cancer.

Fisher is the author of a book called The Invisible Threat: The Risks Associated With EMFs.

For more information, phone the ATRC Chronic Pain & Sports Clinic at 674-2110.


'Water tank' cell tower approved

Peter Day

2010-02-22 15:49:08


That large water tank you just drove by may be holding something very different than you think.

Instead of numerous gallons of drinking water, a rustic-looking circular tank near Seventh Avenue in Hesperia will be built to hold telephone antennas transmitting signals to local cellphone users. And that creatively concealed tank could be just the beginning of a new trend in cell tower camouflaging.

Besides the "mono-pines" and "mono-elms" — cellular antennas disguised as trees — the city also has approved a free-standing sign that will house an array of antennas.

"Code requires them to be camouflaged or disguised," said senior planner Daniel S. Alcayaga. "Cell phones are becoming more and more popular, so I do expect for us to get more applications for wireless communications facilities."

"We're going to have these cell towers around for a long time," Hesperia Planning Commissioner Joline Bell Hahn said before the commission approved T-Mobile's conditional use permit request last week. "And we're going to have three or four cell companies using the same area."

The city has suggested the name "Hesperia Land and Water Company" be emblazoned on the T-Mobile water tank as a historical tribute to the community's original water company that was established in the 1880s, Alcayaga said.

The tank, which will be on property owned by the Hesperia Water District, will be located about 430 west of Seventh Avenue on the north side of Palm Avenue.

"It's similar to one that is in the Oak Hills area," he said. "It's a theme were trying to introduce."

According to Susan Chong, who represented T-Mobile at the Feb. 11 planning commission meeting, the water tank has to be 52-feet high to allow for optimum reception.

"We need to be above the trees," Chong said. "And that's one of the main reasons why we need to be as tall as we need to be."

Hesperia principal planner Dave Reno also attempted to dispel a neighbor's concerns over alleged health concerns from cell tower transmissions.

"Edison has done a great deal of research," Reno said. "No study has proven any health risks."

Reno agreed that more cell facilities should be springing up.

"People want their cell phones to work," he said. "They want them to work everywhere. For that these cell towers are necessary."


Follow up to above story:

Peter Day

Star Editor

Hesperia Star

Hi Peter

There is some false information in your article , where Dave Reno is quoted as saying:  "No study has proven any health risks."

I have attached several documents which point to a massive amount of harm from cell phone antennas.  I hope that you will warn the people of Hesperia.  For much more information about the dangers posed by electro magnetic radiation, visit


Martin Weatherall


Radiation Errors Reported in Missouri

Published: February 24, 2010

A hospital in Missouri said Wednesday that it had overradiated 76 patients, the vast majority with brain cancer, during a five-year period because powerful new radiation equipment had been set up incorrectly even with a representative of the manufacturer watching as it was done.

The hospital, CoxHealth in Springfield, said half of all patients undergoing a particular type of treatment — stereotactic radiation therapy — were overdosed by about 50 percent after an unidentified medical physicist at the hospital miscalibrated the new equipment and routine checks over the next five years failed to catch the error.

The revelation comes at a time of growing concern about safety procedures for a new generation of powerful, computer-controlled medical radiation equipment.

Stereotactic therapy delivers radiation in such high doses that usually only one treatment is required. It is commonly used to treat small tumors in the head, which must be firmly stabilized, allowing radiation to be delivered to a precise location.

The error was discovered in September 2009 only after a second physicist received training on the equipment, made by BrainLAB, and the hospital began questioning whether the machine had been installed correctly in 2004, in a process called commissioning.

The overdoses at CoxHealth occurred in a state where there is little or no government oversight of radiation therapy, a fact that Robert H. Bezanson, the hospital's president and chief executive, chose to emphasize.

On Wednesday, he released a letter that he wrote to the Food and Drug Administration, saying that its recent decision to toughen oversight of diagnostic radiation did not go far enough.

"The initiative should be broadened to include regulation of medical radiation therapy as well," he wrote. "We have also learned that the incident here at CoxHealth is, unfortunately, not an isolated occurrence. Rather, similar instances of medical overradiation have occurred at other hospitals throughout the country. Without increased regulation and oversight, these instances of medical overradiation will likely continue."

The hospital promised to work with state legislators on ways to better regulate radiation therapy.

Last month, The New York Times documented the harm that can result from radiation errors when basic safety rules are not followed. It also found that in a variety of ways, the pace of technology had outpaced the ability of the medical profession and regulators to keep up.

The overdoses in Springfield echoed what occurred at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., where a similar commissioning error resulted in 77 brain cancer patients' receiving 50 percent more radiation than prescribed in 2004 and 2005. The failure of medical facilities to properly commission new radiological equipment was cited as a concern last November by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

A testing service for institutions participating in National Cancer Institute trials recommends that certain newly installed radiotherapy equipment undergo an external, independent review before patients are treated. That did not occur at either Moffitt or CoxHealth.

CoxHealth said that so far it had not found any patients who had been harmed beyond the complications of routine radiation therapy. But patients are still being contacted. Some patients, who were seriously ill, have died, and the hospital is looking into those cases.

"The review of their charts and situation is still ongoing," said Dr. John Duff, senior vice president for hospital operations. "It would be premature to speculate whether the overexposure was a contributing factor to their death."

Dr. Duff said he did not know why the BrainLAB employee who was present while the new equipment was being installed had not caught the mistake. He said that the hospital did not have any reports from BrainLAB indicating a problem.

The physicist who incorrectly installed the equipment no longer works at the hospital. Officials there declined to explain the circumstances of his departure.

"It's unacceptable to us that an error like this occurred, and we are taking steps to make sure that an error like this doesn't happen again," Mr. Bezanson said.

The hospital said its stereotactic system "remains suspended indefinitely while we are auditing the entire program."

Kate Franco, a spokeswoman for BrainLAB, issued a statement Wednesday that said the company had assisted CoxHealth in figuring out what went wrong. "Reviews determined that BrainLAB equipment performed as designed and did not malfunction," the statement said.