Thursday, July 4, 2013

Cellphones pose threat to children's brains / wi-fi out of school / Huffington post article / Dangerous / deceptive / 300 mobile towers / rarely uses a cell / Testimony / Code 6

W.E.E.P. News

The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution

4 July 2013

Experts: Cellphones pose threat to children's brains

STONINGTON — According to a panel of scientists, radiation from cellphones and wireless Internet can negatively affect the brains of children, causing problems with perception, memory and sleep, among other vital functions.
That was the message the scientists brought to the La Grua Center on Friday, hoping to educate the public on what they say is a grave public health danger that is being obscured by corporate interests. Although there are still questions about the effects of cellphones, the scientists felt there was a strong enough correlation that people need to be warned.
Hugh Taylor, a Yale University obstetrician and gynecologist, doesn't study cellphones, but he studies their effect on developing fetuses. Initially, his interest was to see how cellphone radiation affects the fertility of mice that were exposed to cellphone radiation in utero.
He devised a study where half the mice were exposed to cellphones that were powered on, and half to phones that were turned off. But instead of finding fertility effects, he found behavioral effects. The mice that gestated in these conditions were found as adults to be hyperactive, had diminished memory and they weren't anxious, causing them to act impulsively. In human terms, they had the symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
"The fetus is very vulnerable," Taylor said. "It's at a very delicate age."
Their brain cells also behaved differently, on a molecular level, than the control mice.
The cellphone communicates with the tower all of the time, unless it's turned off, so humans don't need to be on the phone all of the time to receive constant exposure, Taylor said. He advises pregnant women not to carry a cellphone on their belt or in their pocket, or keep a phone by their beds at night.
Martin Blank, a researcher in bioelectromagnetics at Columbia University, said the reason these electromagnetic fields are dangerous is because they can damage DNA, the genetic material that dictates how cells grow. Even at the lowest energy levels, from radiation generated by the electricity used to power lightbulbs and televisions, radiation can affect children, he said. He cited studies that showed that growing up near high-tension power lines correlates with an increase in leukemia, neurological diseases and cancers. He also cited a study that showed children who grew up near a radio tower have higher rates of cancer, which increased the closer they lived to the tower. Blank had other data showing that rates of salivary gland cancer increased with cellphone use.
Damage to DNA can cause errors, which in turn can cause cancer, years after the error occurs, he said.
David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and Environment at the University of Albany, cautioned that children are receiving too much exposure to radiation and electromagnetic fields. Microwaves are everywhere, he explained, and not just in your kitchen. They come from cell towers, cellphones, radar and wireless Internet in homes, businesses and schools.
"Cellphones are everywhere," he said. "People just can't seem to get along without them."
However, he noted, United States standards for microwave exposure are based on the amount of microwaves it would take to cook your body like a baked potato, and not on correlation to cancer and behavioral issues like irritability, depression and an inability to concentrate. Standards in Eastern Bloc countries are 1,000 times lower, he said.
Like the first three speakers, Devra Lee Davis said there are strong correlations of the effect of cellphones on children's brains, but not direct evidence.
"We don't have a lot of clear information," she said, "and if we're really smart, we're not going to wait for it."
Davis, who founded the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh, agreed with others that male fertility can be affected by microwaves, and much more than female fertility. Female reproductive organs are more protected than males', and males continue to manufacture reproductive cells throughout their lives, while women are born with all of theirs.
"When you guys put that cellphone in your pocket, think about it," she said to the men in the room.
The panelists had advice for the roughly 50 people who attended the presentation. Turn your cellphones off when they're not using them. Keep them as far away from your bodies as possible, and keep them as far away from your head as possible when you talk on them. Cellphones should not be kept near the abdomen of pregnant women, and young children should only use them in an emergency. Don't sleep with your phone. And men who would like to be fathers some day should keep their phones out of their pockets.
Switzerland:  Teachers decide to keep wi-fi out of school
Seeing the articles about installation of wi-fi in schools in your recent news, I thought this news would be refreshing:  (the original article is not available on-line to non-subscribers, so they are posted on my blogs in French and English (translation).  

Switzerland:  Teachers decide to keep wi-fi out of school: (English translation)

Suisse:  La Chaux-de-Fonds: Les profs on eu la peau du wi-fi: (original article in French)

Huffington post article.  Very powerful!
Regarding new developments, please also share my newest Huffington Post piece this one just up now
that highlights Turkish developments and digital dementia growth

Devra Davis
Dangerous new technology?

A German firm is proposing to transmit adverts via train windows so that the sound appears to "come from inside the user's head" when passengers lean against them.

The idea would use bone conduction technology, a technique that transmits sound to the inner ear by passing vibrations through the skull.

The concept has been developed by ad agency BBDO Germany on behalf of broadcaster Sky Deutschland.


Information package misleading /deceptive
Subject: Rogers Telecommunications information package misleading/deceptive
Dear Hon. Minister Paradis,
I am writing to you because Rogers Telecommunications is lying to city councils and to the public about the safety of cell transmitters, and it is your responsibility to stop this deception.
As you know, the public is becoming more aware of the many studies showing health effects of prolonged exposure to RF radiation from cell transmitters, wifi modems, etc. As well, local governments are concerned that telecommunications transmitters and towers are being put in areas that the residents believe to be inappropriate and are demanding more involvement.
Rogers has applied to erect a cell tower in the midst of a residential neighbourhood in Esquimalt, British Columbia. It has followed policy established by Industry Canada, notifying the public, providing information. But the information that it has provided is not accurate and neither is it honest. I have attached a page from a package that contains statements to which I object and, I believe, you should, too: 
1) "The consensus among the Canadian health organizations and the scientific community is that wireless antennas are safe."
I would ask that you require Rogers to substantiate this statement. I daresay there is not one scientist or health organization that would say these are safe. In fact, in May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer declared RF emissions a 2b carcinogen. That means RF radiation is NOT safe. How can Rogers deceive people by saying otherwise? Even industry funded reports do not make this assertion.
2) "The power would be similar to that of a computer monitor or light bulb operating in a household when measured at ground level."
In no way can a cellular transmitter be compared to a light bulb. It is not the power of the cell transmitter that is dangerous but rather it is the radiation that it emits and the modulations that have been shown to put our bodies' cells under extreme stress.
A light bulb does not emit radiofrequency radiation. Neither does it emit modulating signals. This is a blatant attempt to mislead people into believing that having a cell transmitter within a few meters of a home (e.g. 30 meters) is no more dangerous than having a light bulb on your table. In fact, there are multiple examples of cancer clusters within 400-500 meters of a cellular base stations. Sadly,  cancer is not the only or most common effect experienced by people exposed to microwave radiation on a prolonged basis.
Mr. Paradis, I have been told that Telus is making the same statements in their public packages. This is truly reprehensible. Certainly there must be standards of honesty and ethics which these companies are ignoring. When all of the power rests with them and Industry Canada, why must they treat the public, their customers,  with such contempt if the transmitters are so safe??
Sir, I believe it is your duty to reprimand these companies and demand that they resubmit this package, with these untruths corrected, to every council and every community where they have been circulated.
I look forward to receiving your response.
Yours truly,
Sharon Noble
Victoria, British Columbia
cc. City of Esquimalt Mayor and Council

India - Noida to relocate 300 mobile towers

In the wake of health risk posed by mobile phone towers, the Noida Authority has decided to relocate all such antennas from residential areas of the city. The authority will identify locations in isolated places — far from residential colonies — where they will be relocated.

Gro Harlem Brundtland rarely uses a cell phone
Turns out that the Norwegian Minister of Health was
not telling the whole story:
In fact, Gro Harlem Brundtland rarely uses a cell phone,
according to a message she relayed to Thomas Ergo,
the Norwegian reporter covering the story.

Read the latest at:

Louis Slesin
Editor, Microwave News
Smart Meter Testimony

BOSTON: The legal right to refuse a smart meter is "fundamentally an issue of the principle of choice," testified Rep. Tom Conroy (D) Wayland at the Telecommunications Committee hearing on Tuesday.

Rep. Andrea Boland (D), Maine testified "The movement to permit opt-outs nationwide is growing" and "the threat of health effects is real. The conditions vary from mild to overwhelmingly debilitating and it can stay with a person for a lifetime, once it settles in. The threat of loss of privacy is real." She went on "the Maine Public Utilities Commission has now commenced a financial audit of the Maine system. You will find great resistance to offering opt-outs. The industry will describe all the benefits of being able to monitor individual usage from a distance and downplay the health and security risks. They will talk about savings and efficiency but you will likely find them coming back to you for rate increases as we have." Central Maine Power, last month requested an 8% rate increase after revising 'smart' metering projected $25M savings to an $80 to $99M cost.

Janet Newton, EMR Policy Institute testified that FCC guidelines are not standards, which require human epidemiological studies. "Currently there are no national or international "standards" for safety levels of radiofrequency devices," she quoted De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, MPH, of Kaiser Permanente, "to claim that they meet 'FCC' standards gives a false impression of safety certainty compared to 'guidelines' which implies that a lot is 'unknown.'"

Watch the testimony here:

See the full testimony here:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Re: Safety Code 6 Public Consultation Rescheduled

In biomedical research, we could very early see that the current guidelines do not meet basic requirements for the protection of the population. The ICNIRP current SAR "limits"* are solely based on acute thermal effects – within 6 minutes (!) - and estimated in laboratories using so-called phantom heads, i.e. liquid-filled plastic dolls.
[*At a meeting in London a few years ago (2005), Paulo Vecchia, head of ICNIRP, strongly emphasized that these SAR recommendations never were intended to be any medical collateral values. (I quote :) He said about the "exposure guidelines": "What they are not": "They are not mandatory prescriptions for safety", "They are not the" last word "on the issue", and "They are not defensive walls for industry or others. "]
We therefore quickly started to demand biologically-based limits and intensified studies on the effects of radiation exposure (I was the first to speak out that the only acceptable hygienic safety value today = the natural background). We, thus, early concluded:

            Low-intensity (non-thermal) bioeffects and adverse health effects are demonstrated at levels significantly below existing standards.
            ICNIRP and IEEE/FCC public safety limits are inadequate and obsolete with respect to prolonged, low-intensity exposures.
            New, biologically-based public exposure standards are urgently needed to protect public health world-wide.
            It is not in the public interest to wait.

One of the main industry's fortresses is the erroneous measure (=SAR) introduced by them to estimate EMF bioeffects. In the present paper*, we tear down this fortress.... Our paper is a comprehensive critique and integration of the science around SAR is in conflict with the FCC, IEEE, ICNIRP, and other government safety standards, and the standard approaches used in safety studies of EMR around the world.

Evaluation of Specific Absorption Rate as a Dosimetric Quantity for Electromagnetic Fields Bioeffects

PLoS One. 2013 Jun 4;8(6):e62663. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062663. Print 2013

In essence, our recent paper about SAR is a very important step away from plastic doll-based research and instead towards biologically-based safety recommendations with genuine relevance for living organisms. In our mind, this is the only way to approach these issues, especially since children may be at great risk. We therefore choose not to wait but to act.

To continue to use SAR as a safety recommendation after our paper now has been published will only demonstrate total ignorance of and disrespect to the actual facts in the matter. Personally, I would be very surprised if any health authority or radiation protection board around the world would continue down that road - it may end them up in a very "thermal" place.

Best regards
(Olle Johansson
The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm

To sign up for WEEP News:  (provide name and e-mail address)

W.E.E.P. – The Canadian initiative to stop: Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution