Category: Cell Phones Safty

Mobile phone radiation can weaken brain performance

EMF 0 Comments Cell Phones Safty Cell Towers Nashville Tennessee Home inspections Real Estate Inspection

Swiss researchers have confirmed the potentially damaging impact of the frequent use of mobile phones among adolescents.

A study found that the so called figural memory performance – the ability to remember abstract forms – can deteriorate if the brain is often subjected to high frequency electromagnetic fields, according to the Tropical and Public Health Instituteexternal link.

The research included more than 700 teenagers from German-speaking Switzerland over 12 months for the first large-scale study of its kind, the institute said in a statement on Thursday.

The results are in line with findings from a 2015 study among more than 400 teenagers, the scientists say.

The latest study found evidence that radiation has had a significant impact on the right half of the brain – where the figural memory is located -, among adolescents who hold the phone to their right ear when making a call.

Sending text messages or surfing the internet has had no noticeable impact, according to the scientists.

However, more research is needed to determine the significance of the research and to exclude other factors, they added.

The study was carried out in cooperation with a European Union research programme, Geronimoexternal link, and was co-funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

Read More

Cell Phones and Health Risks: A Conversation With Journalist Mark Dowie

EMF 0 Comments Cell Phones Safty Nashville Tennessee Home inspections Real Estate Inspection

War gaming the science on cell phones and health risks: A conversation with journalist Mark Dowie

By
Mary Beth Brangan and Jim Heddle

06/28/2018

We’ve been documenting the development of wireless microwave devices and the independent science on its effects for the past 20 years. So we were delighted by a recent confluence of events: the release of the National Toxicology Program peer-reviewed study and the publication of an article in The Nation, “How Big Wireless Convinced Us Our Cell Phones Are Safe,” focused on how industry war-gamed the science.

Soon after, a major study was released in Italy that replicated the results of the National Toxicology Project study. Both found that the same rare cancers appeared in animal subjects exposed to both high and low levels of radio frequency-modulated electromagnetic field radiation.

We couldn’t resist interviewing Inverness resident Mark Dowie about all of it. Mark is a celebrated investigative reporter and historian, the author of many books, the winner of at least 19 journalism awards, a former publisher and editor of Mother Jones Magazine and the co-author with Mark Hertsgaard of the recent Nation article. Here is our conversation. 

Jim: How did you decide to write this story?

Mark: [Mark] Hertsgaard, who’s the investigative editor of The Nation, asked me to do a big story on cell phones. I looked at the literature and found that cell phones have been beaten to death. It’s a shop-worn story, impossible to advance.

So I said, “I think the story is how industry has been war gaming science”—‘war gaming’ is their term, not mine—and gave him the history going back to military research that was done on microwaves during the Cold War, then up to the present, and how so much of it has been suppressed, classified, hidden and distorted by wireless defenders who tore pages from the playbooks of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, then used the same P.R. firms, the same law firms. All to do the same thing: manufacture doubt about the harmfulness of this technology. Hertsgaard said, “Okay. Let’s go with that.”

Jim:  Did you find anything surprising that you didn’t expect?

Mark: Of course. Whenever you do a story like this, you’re bound to discover amazing things that were never exposed before, meet amazing people. But what really stood out to me was the lack of imagination in this industry. They literally did exactly what cigarette manufacturers did for 50 years, even hired the same people who had tried to make tobacco look safe, tried to make P.C.B.s look safe, tried to make all sorts of horrible things look safe. The very same people who had failed to make tobacco look safe were hired to make wireless look safe. That’s surprising to me. Get some imagination, guys. When people do that, I’m tempted to quote Sun Tzu from “The Art of War.” There’s only one sentence you need to remember from that book: “Don’t ever do the same thing the same way twice and you’ll win the war.”

Anybody who’s written intelligently about conflict repeats that adage—do things a little bit differently every time and you’ll win. It’s about the art of surprise. How can you surprise anyone when you go back to the same lawyers and flacks, who will just pull up same tired tactics?

Mary Beth: Folks in West Marin have been hyperaware of these issues since the growth of cell towers starting in the late 1990s. What should our area be aware of, in terms of the evidence and the science that you’ve uncovered?

Mark: I think we should feel blessed to live where we live. I don’t know whether you’ve ever done any of those searches, which you can do just with antennasearch.com. I did this once in downtown San Francisco, and found the location was being zapped by seven big towers. What have we got here? One up on Mount Vision with a very weak signal. That’s AT&T’s. Then we have Verizon over on Mount Barnaby. That’s pretty much it, where I am in Inverness. You?

Mary Beth: We have two towers at the Bolinas fire station, but we have 27 antennas scattered within four miles of our zip code.

Mark: Well, Bo is being zapped. You’re a laboratory.

Mary Beth: Did you look carefully at the results of the recent National Toxicology Program study?

Mark: Yes, I did. In fact, it was peer reviewed and announced while we were doing the story. It was a clear sign that telling and revealing science was beginning to pile up against the wireless industry.

Mary Beth: By that you mean?

Mark: Evidence. Evidence is accumulating. Five years from now, I might very well be sitting right here telling you, “Yes, non-ionizing radiation is a carcinogen.” But right now, I think that the most compelling fact is that a long-term heavy dose of pulsated non-ionizing radiation can break DNA strands, which is a precursor of cancer. And look, DNA is everywhere. It’s not just in humans. It’s in every living thing. Radiation is affecting the grass on your lawn. It’s affecting the bees, birds and trees.

Maybe this year, but certainly next year, the World Health Organization and its International Agency for Research on Cancer are going to reconsider their classification of cell phone radiation. They recently increased its classification from a 3 (“not classifiable”) to 2B—“possibly carcinogenic.” There are scientists at WHO who want to push it immediately to 2A—“a probable carcinogen.”

Jim: What about this onslaught that’s being conducted by the industry to foist 5G on cities and rural areas?

Mary Beth: Do you think that we’ll have to worry out here in West Marin about 5G, the soon-to-be-rolled-out fifth generation of wireless technology?

Mark: Not immediately. 5G is going to be the heart of so-called smart cities, smart cars, smart transportation, smart everything. That’s going to be concentrated in urban areas. Of course, one goal of the wireless industry is to overcome the so-called “digital divide,” which means people in the country aren’t getting the wonders of wireless that people in the cities are getting. There will be more wireless technology brought into the rural areas of the world, yes. But I still don’t think it’ll ever get to the point where it is in cities, where you’ve got the entire city driving itself on smart devices, and seven towers zapping one location at once. We focus on cell phones because we carry them around. Smart phones are everywhere, but just one of thousands and thousands of devices in the so-called “Internet of Things,” the collective product that will be served by 5G.

Mary Beth: How serious a health hazard do you think 5G could become?

Mark: I don’t think wireless will ever be a big, bad carcinogen like tobacco, where you can’t live a long life if you use it. I think it’s going to affect a small number of humans, the “power users” and screen-addicted children who are exposed all day. But the numbers are deceiving. Right now, there are a billion people in the world smoking tobacco. We know from long-term epidemiology that about 5 percent of them will get cancer every year. And about 1 percent of those people will die. That’s about eight million people in the world dying every year as a consequence of smoking—one half of 1 percent of all smokers, right?

If you take that low cancer death rate from tobacco and transplant it to cell phones, with its universe of six billion users, you get a significant number. Again, a very low rate—half of 1 percent. But crunch that number. It produces a huge number of cancers, 30 million worldwide, every year—about eight times the current global rate of new cancers. And that’s just from cell phones. Wireless radiation is almost everywhere, and it’s invisible, silent and odorless. You can’t escape it, as you can from second-hand smoke. We’re being zapped, unknowingly wherever we are, along with every other living organism on the planet.

Mary Beth: I’m sure you came across the fact that there are very small windows of exposure that have huge effects, right?

Mark: Say more.

Mary Beth: Harm from radio frequency-modulated electromagnetic fields isn’t only dose-dependent; it is also cumulative. Studies show there are some small windows of exposure, very tiny amounts that, because they are so similar to a bodily function frequency, really cause problems, especially with chronic exposure.

Mark: Yeah, that’s probably true. And it’s wave pulsation, not the waves themselves, which are virtually harmless, that appear to damage DNA and sperm, while compromising the blood-brain barrier.

Mary Beth: Who regulates the wireless industry?

Mark: The F.C.C., but they’re essentially powerless. They can set the standard absorption rates for cell phones and other radiation emitting devices, but they can’t spank anyone for exceeding the standard. They have no police power. The F.D.A. does and so does the E.P.A., but not over wireless products. That was taken from them by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a creation of Al Gore and to my mind the original sin against wireless regulation. The bill took all wireless regulatory power away from the F.D.A., C.D.C. and E.P.A. The E.P.A. can still shut down a factory if it’s causing a public health problem, but not if the origin is wireless. And the F.C.C. can’t shut down anything that is emitting dangerous levels of non-ionizing radiation. They can take a license from a broadcaster if someone says “shit” on the air, but they can’t take anything away from anybody who’s pumping excess radiation into the environment. Thank you Al Gore.

Mary Beth: Do you have advice for wireless device users?

Mark: Sure, I direct them to the fine print on their own phone, which few people have ever seen. It’s a vague, difficult-to-find, arcane warning, in very small print, about the standard absorption rate of the radiation from their device. Then I ask them: “You have children? You see your child sitting on the couch with their device over their lap? Yank it out of their hands. They’re zapping their reproductive organs.” Many studies show that sperm and ovaries can be permanently damaged by non-ionizing radiation. That might not lead to death, but it could create serious birth defects in their children. And Mary Beth, don’t carry your cell phone in your bra.

Mary Beth: (laughing) Of course not.

Mark: A lot of women do that. I have to tell you that I wrote a very cynical conclusion to this article that I expected The Nation wouldn’t run. I was right, they didn’t. But I just had to predict somewhere that if the suspected hazards of wireless radiation turn out to be real, and we keep “progressing” from one generation of wireless technology to another, and never stop to consider the possible consequences, 500 years from now only a very few, very rare humans who are not sensitive to E.M.F./R.F. radiation will have survived. The more important point that did stay in the article is that the objective we are all pursuing here, as activists and journalists, is informed consent. Like participants in a clinical trial, a community cannot give consent to new installations of anything until it is informed. That’s your job, and you’re doing it well. But it should also be the responsibility of industry, local government, elected representatives and the public utilities that are allowing their infrastructure to host radiation-emitting technology. And they are all either withholding what they know, outright lying about it or simply ignoring sound science and public health on their way to the bank. And, of course, informing consent should also be the responsibility of media, which is why I took on this assignment, with the intention of focusing on an industry that, by war gaming science and deliberately manufacturing doubt, may be creating a serious public health problem.

Jim Heddle and Mary Beth Brangan are co-directors of Ecological Options Network, or EON. They live in Bolinas.

Read More

What is Brain Tumor? What are the Causes of Brain Tumor?

EMF 0 Comments Cell Phones Safty Cell Towers EMF-home-inspection Nashville Tennessee Home inspections Real Estate Inspection Smart Meters

We all are quite familiar with the name ‘Brain Tumor’. But how many of us know what Brain Tumor is actually all about? Very few. Well, having some knowledge about the tumor won’t hurt much. Or maybe this can prove to be helpful as an information in and itself which can further help you in understanding about this disease if there’s anyone around you who’s going through one.

What is Brain Tumor?

The abnormal cells which spread across or start growing out of the control are normally known as the tumor. However, it is essential to understand the difference between the benign and malignant tumors. Benign tumor normally doesn’t go into other parts of the body. Thus, they aren’t dangerous. However, malignant tumors can spread to other parts or tissues of the brain and can subsequently damage them to an extent which can result in disabling of the brain. This is the reason why doctors have termed it as ‘Brain Tumor’ and not as ‘Brain Cancer.’ Brain tumor because of its nature can spread readily in other parts which

Cells or Tissues of the Brain and Spinal Cord

The tumor that gets developed in the tissues or the cells of the brain are as follows:

1) Glial Cells

  • Astrocytes
  • Oligodendrocytes
  • Ependymal Cells

2)  Microglia

3) Neuroectodermal Cells

4) Meninges

5) Choroid plexus

Reasons and Causes of Brain Tumor

There are several reasons because of which Brain Tumor is caused. However, as per the report of the American Cancer Society, 1.3% deaths are caused amongst the adult and children because of the brain or spinal cord cancers. Nevertheless, as per the same report, in white persons, the brain and spinal cord cancer are more usual, or you can say common. And meninges cancer is quite common in women.

The reasons because of which cancer is caused are many. However, it is said that 5% of the brain tumors are hereditary. Some other causes of Brain Tumor are as follows:

  • It is reported that Electromagnetic fields can become the cause of the brain tumor-like use of a cellular or cordless phone.
  • People who, because of their profession, are exposed to chemicals like asbestos, arsenic, lead pesticides etc. can more likely become the victim of such tumors.
  • Infections or the intake of calcium in one’s diet can also be the cause of brain tumor.
  • People who have some sort of allergies can also become the victim of brain tumors.
  • Another cause of brain tumor could be the usage of hair dyes or sprays which people do on their hair.

Brain Tumor Treatment

The treatment for brain tumor vary. There are many ways which are used for treating the brain tumor. Some of them are mentioned as follows:

  • Surgery: Surgery can be used for treating the Brain and Spinal Cord Tumor.
  • Radiation: Radiation is another option for treating the adult Brain and Spinal Cord Tumor.
  • Chemotherapy: Chemotherapy is also an option which can be used for treating Brain and Spinal Cord Tumor.

Which Treatment should be taken?

The treatment of the brain tumor varies on several factors as well as depends upon the individual as well. However, some of the factors which should be taken into consideration before seeking a treatment are as follows:

  • The age and the condition of the individual’s health overall.
  • The kind of tumor that a person is diagnosed with as well as its location.
  • Taking the feelings of oneself into consideration about the side effects of the treatment that one is about to choose.
  • The percentile of the results of the treatment as to how much will the treatment be effective in curing the individual’s tumor.

References

  • https://www.cancer.org/cancer/brain-spinal-cord-tumors-adults.html
  • https://ephtracking.cdc.gov/showCancerBrainEnv.action

Read More

Our cellphone addiction is destroying wildlife

EMF 0 Comments Cell Phones Safty Cell Towers Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Electromagnetic radiation from Wi-Fi and cell towers poses a “credible risk” to birds, mammals, insects and plants
Reynard Loki
July 14, 2018 1:00am (UTC)
This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
There is growing evidence that our addiction to cellphones could be impacting brain functionality and be the cause of stress, anxiety, insomnia and a lack of attention and focus. Now a new report has found that we’re not the only living things to be affected by our increasing dependence on wireless technology. Mammals, birds, insects and even plants are likely being harmed by the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emanating from Wi-Fi, cellphone towers, broadcast transmitters and power lines, according to a new analysis of 97 peer-reviewed studies conducted by EKLIPSE, a biodiversity and ecosystem project funded by the European Union.The researchers said that “evidence is accumulating that mammals (e.g., bats and mice) have a magnetic sense” that is affected by radio-frequency-modulated electromagnetic fields (RF-EMR). Birds in particular may be highly susceptible. The researchers found that even weak magnetic fields in the radio frequency range can disrupt birds’ magnetoreception, their ability to use the Earth’s magnetic fields to orient themselves and find their way home.

Homing pigeons are well-known for their magnetoreception, but this sense has also been detected in other animals, like red foxes, and there is evidence that even large mammals like deer use the planet’s magnetic fields to sense direction. A number of invertebrates, including worms, mollusks and fruit flies also use this ability.

The report also concluded that EMR can also alter the metabolism of plants, causing “significant changes … demonstrated at cellular and molecular levels.” The authors noted that even a low level exposure to EMR “caused a rapid increase in stress-related transcript accumulation in tomato [plants].” Transcription is the first phase in the expression of a gene, in which a specific segment of DNA is copied into RNA.

The authors said that their findings indicate “an urgent need to strengthen the scientific basis of the knowledge on EMR and their potential impacts on wildlife,” specifically calling out the “need to base future research on sound, high-quality, replicable experiments so that credible, transparent and easily accessible evidence can inform society and policy-makers to make decisions and frame their policies.”

The UK charity Buglife (which proposed the analysis) warned that there wasn’t enough research to determine limits to EMR pollution. The group said that “serious impacts on the environment could not be ruled out” and urged that 5G transmitters should not be placed near street lights, which attract nocturnal insects like moths, nor in areas near wildlife.

Buglife CEO Matt Shardlow, who served on the experts steering group of the report, warned that “there is a credible riskthat 5G could impact significantly on wildlife.” He added:

“We apply limits to all types of pollution to protect the habitability of our environment, but as yet, even in Europe, the safe limits of electromagnetic radiation have not been determined, let alone applied. This is a classic case of out of sight out of mind, just because humans cannot see electromagnetic radiation this does not mean that animals cannot ‘see’ the pollution or be significantly impacted at a neural or cellular level. A proper research program and clear policy measures are long overdue.”

Shardlow specifically warned of the current rollout of 5th-generation wireless systems, or 5G networks, and called on telecommunications firms to research the impact of their wireless technology on wildlife and make their findings public. In May, Qatar become the first nation in the world to have a 5G network. The worldwide commercial launch of 5G is expected in 2020.

The report authors also said that strong EMR fields increase the temperature in living tissue, but the intensity needed to induce such heating is “not experienced by wildlife (so far).” It’s notable that they left the door open to this other potential emerging threat, as cellphone adoption rates are steadily rising globally. The number of smartphone users worldwide is forecast to grow from 2.1 billion in 2016 to around 2.5 billion in 2019, according to Statista, a market research firm. That means more cell towers—and more EMR being emitted into the environment.

“When you start to observe and realize that swallows and house martins no longer nest in towns and villages, when you realize that the sparrows have all disappeared, that in the evenings there are no bats flying in the dusk and that you no longer hear owls hooting, then you will begin to know what effect microwaves from cell towers and antennas are having on the environment,” said one commenter to a One World News article about the report.

The report comes on the heels of a recent appeal to the United Nations, signed by more than 200 scientists from 41 countries, urging the international body to address the risks posed electromagnetic fields (EMF), physical fields produced by objects charged by electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation. Specifically, the scientists want the UN to “recognize that EMF exposure is an emerging health and environmental crisis that requires a high priority response.”

“Biologists and scientists are not being heard on the committees that set safety standards,” said Dr. Martin Blank of the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University and signatory of the appeal, in a video address on the website of International EMF Alliance, a group founded in 2009 that disseminates information to policymakers and health authorities about the potential effects of electromagnetic radiation. “The biological facts are being ignored and as a result, the safety limits are much too high. They are not protective.”

Though evidence is mounting that humans may also be physiologically affected by EMF, the jury is still out on the impact of long-term low-frequency exposure. The World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that “current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields.” However, the agency does admit that “some gaps in knowledgeabout biological effects exist and need further research.”

But the WHO is partially responsible for the widespread concern. As Bob Berman points out in his recent book “Zapped: From Infrared to X-rays, the Curious History of Invisible Light“:

“Some of the fears are based on a report issued in 2011 by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The agency had gathered in Lyon, France, to discuss scientific studies surrounding the question of whether there’s a relationship between radio-frequency-modulated electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and cancer. After intense deliberations, and to the great surprise of the world at large, experts decided to classify RF-EMF waves emitted by cell phones, cell towers, and Wi-Fi networks as category 2B, indicating a ‘possible human carcinogen.’”

For Dr. Blank and his colleagues raising the warning flag to the United Nations, the evidence is clear. “Cellphones, tablets, Wi-Fi, etc. Putting it bluntly, they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely,” he said in his video address. “Rising exposure to electromagnetic radiation is a global problem. The World Health Organization and international standard-setting bodies are not acting to protect the public’s health and well-being. International exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields must be strengthened.”

In his video address, Dr. Blank suggested that the current EMF safety limits may be inadequate due to the influence of the telecommunications industry on the policymakers. “More protection will probably result from full disclosure of possible conflicts of interest between regulators and industry,” he said.

“We have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control. Before Edison’s lightbulb, there was very little electromagnetic radiation in our environment. The levels today are very many times higher than natural background levels and are growing rapidly because of all the new devices that emit this radiation. An example that a lot of us have right now in our pockets is the cellphone.”

Watch Dr. Martin Blank’s video address:

Read More

Articles have warned of the now proven dangers of cellphones to all species.

EMF 0 Comments Cell Phones Safty Cell Towers EMF-home-inspection Wi-Fi

proven dangersREGARDING the article in the Highway Mail dated 15th June edition about the City stating that “Cell masts not a health risk”, the city is either ignorant, misinformed or deliberately putting out false information.

The following articles are but a fraction of the growing body of scientific evidence about the environmental and health risks of electromagnetic fields and warnings about 5G.

The journalist reports that the municipality states that there are “no proven health risks…. according to the WHO”.

However, the WHO’s recommendation is that the electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as possibly carcinogenic to humans. The WHO is purportedly increasing carcinogenic classification of wireless radiation this year

http://pocketnow.com/2018/04/05/who-carinogenic-wireless-radiation-up

https://www.emfacts.com/2018/05/emerging-possibility-for-a-meticulous-impartial-review-of-the-emf-science-at-the-who/

Experts at Italy’s Ramazzini Institute say radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell phones should be classified as a “probable” human carcinogen rather than a “possible” carcinogen (see links below).

Furthermore, the city claims to have been briefed by the industry. That’s like asking the tobacco companies view about their product’s link to disease and ignoring the medical evidence. Here are some thoughts and studies on the cell phone companies’ disinformation:

How the Wireless Industry Convinced the Public Cell phones Are Safe and Cherry-Picked Research on Risks.

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/4/5/how_the_wireless_industry_convinced_the

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/4/5/how_big_wireless_war_gamed_the

How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation: The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout.

A new investigation explores how big wireless companies used the same playbook as oil and tobacco to deceive the public and create the appearance of scientific uncertainty while making people think that cell phones are safer than independent science suggests

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/

http://kalw.org/post/nation-investigates-how-big-wireless-made-us-think-cell-phones-are-safe#stream/0

And here are some of the latest studies that give lie to the city’s contention that there are no proven health risks:

World’s Largest Animal Study On Cell Tower Radiation Confirms Cancer Link

Scientists call on the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer to re-evaluate the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation after the Ramazzini Institute and US government studies report finding the same unusual cancers.

https://www.saferemr.com/2018/01/national-toxicology-program-peer-public.html

https://www.saferemr.com/2016/05/national-toxicology-progam-finds-cell.html

ALSO READ: Cell masts, not a health risk, says City

“Clear Evidence of Cancer” says Peer Review Panel on US Gov’t $25 Mil NTP Study Commissioned by the FDA https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/actions20180328_508.pdf

Can your cell phone cause cancer? Scientists find definitive link in study of rats. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/health-care/article207112454.html

And as for 5G, people around the world are fighting its introduction.

Exactly How The New “5G” EMFs Will Make Us Sick with Dr. Jack Kruse (Electrosmog Rx free preview)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-kt3_oQ8ns

Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5G

International Society of Doctors for the Environment Support 5G Moratorium
5G networks in European Countries: appeal for a standstill in the respect of the precautionary principle

http://www.isde.org/5G_appeal.pdf

The human skin as a sub-THz receiver – Does 5G pose a danger to it or not?

“…We are raising a warning flag against the unrestricted use of sub-THz technologies for communication, before the possible consequences for public health are explored.”!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29459303

The roll out of 5G wireless service is ‘a massive health experiment,’ public health expert warns as cell companies install 800,000 towers across the US

  • Some research has suggested that cell phone radiation may be carcinogenic
  • The new millimetre waves used in 5G have hardly been studied and introducing them constitutes an ‘experiment,’ warns a public health professor

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5784487/The-roll-5G-wireless-service-massive-health-experiment-public-health-expert-warns-a.html#ixzz5HQPG7jbN

Human chain across Segovia to Stop 5G

Everyone is invited to participate. Please forward this to all your media contacts.

On Saturday, June 16, 2018, a human chain will be formed across the city of Segovia, Spain. This event will occur after a day of presentations by scientists from Spain, France, Canada, and the United States. Following this event, on June 17, there will be a day of conversation, round tables, and workshops. https://www.stop5g.electroyquimicosensibles.org/

5G wireless towers raise health, property value concerns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57hHyGHffmU

Wi-Fried’ — Is Wireless Technology Dooming a Generation to Ill Health? https://vimeo.com/155864822

Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355?via%3Dihub

And if you’re wondering where all the insects have gone, and with them the birds, bats and other small animals, here is a large part of the reason:

Exposure of Insects to RF EMF from 2 to 120 GHz https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3

Proliferation of Wireless Radiation Emissions Accelerates New Silent Spring https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264424901_Electrosmog_and_species_conservation

http://www.moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/final_mobile_towers_report.pdf

Newsweek: “RADIATION FROM CELL PHONES, WIFI ARE HURTING THE BIRDS AND THE BEES; 5G MAY MAKE IT WORSE”

http://www.newsweek.com/migratory-birds-bee-navigation-5g-technology-electromagnetic-radiation-934830

Electromagnetic radiation from power lines and phone masts poses ‘credible’ threat to wildlife, report finds

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/05/17/electromagnetic-radiation-power-lines-phone-masts-poses-credible/

Brain Tumours Double, Prompt Warning on Cell phones

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/05/15/brain-tumors-cellphones.aspx

A recent study revealed a rise in glioblastoma multiforme, an aggressive brain tumour, in England from 1995 to 2015.

Incidence rates more than doubled from 2.4 to 5 per 100,000 people during the study period, an increase the study authors say cannot be fully explained by random chance or improvement in diagnostic techniques and is “most likely” due to cell phones.

Two government-funded studies conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that exposure to cell phone radiation led to heart tumours in male rates, along with “some evidence” that it caused brain tumours in rats 15 newpapers on electromagnetic fields and biology or health https://www.saferemr.com/

 

We support the DA’s call for the city to conduct an independent study into the health effects of cell towers, their impact on the environment and on property values before any further masts are erected or installed.

Section 24 of the Constitution enshrines the right to the Environment in that everyone has the right —

to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures.

Warren Friedman
Westville

Read More

Smartphone’s Radiation Levels or SAR Value? Here’s why it is important

EMF 0 Comments Cell Phones Safty Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Safty and Remediation

Updated Apr 09, 2018 | 11:19 IST | Times Now Digital

When it comes to the radiation levels a smartphone emits, we tend to give it a miss, almost everytime as there are many users who don’t even know what SAR value of a smartphone is and why should they be worried about the radiation levels?

SAR ValueA smartphone is one of the essential pieces of technology these days and while you might be sleeping and waking up with your smartphone, constantly worrying about any new notification that you get, you might have also heard that sleeping with your smartphone and keeping this device with you, all the time, can cause some serious issues to your body. If yes, then whatever you know is true as your smartphone’s radiation levels or SAR value should be given more importance than you ever thought.

It is also true that when we go out to buy a new smartphone, the only thing we focus on is the specs-sheet – which one has the better camera, which is the best gaming phone for your price range or can it act as a status symbol in your circle. But the matter of fact is, when it comes to the radiation levels a smartphone emits, we tend to give it a miss, almost everytime as there are many users who don’t even know what SAR value of a smartphone is and why should they be worried about the radiation levels?

What is SAR value?

It is no secret that smartphone and even feature phones use electromagnetic radiation to communicate with a cellular tower in the spectrum of radio waves. The frequency emitted is between 450-2100MHz, which also depends on our device as well as the carrier’s network. Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), on the other hand, is the rate at which electromagnetic power is radiated from smartphone and cellular towers near you and which is absorbed by the human body. The SAR value is a measure of the maximum energy which is absorbed by a unit of mass of exposed tissue in a human being using a mobile phone, over a given time.

Smartphones’ radiation levels or SAR values are usually depicted in units of watts per kilogram (W/kg) in either one gram or 10 gram of tissue. Every handset is tested for radio wave emissions using internationally standardised methods that meet government as well as regulatory requirements. Then a measurement is made in order to determine how much electromagnetic energy will be absorbed by body tissue which gives out the SAR (specific absorption rate) value. All governmental and regulatory agencies around the globe have established their SAR limits under which mobile phone use has been determined by them to be safe.

What is considered as a safe SAR value?

The matter of fact is, mobile manufacturers, conduct their own SAR measurement tests under the worst case scenarios and the SAR value that a particular smartphone or any other mobile phone emits can usually be found printed in the manual, which is also the highest possible value of that device.

In the United States, mobile phones should have a SAR value of 1.6 W/Kg or below, and in Europe, the limit is at 2 W/kg. However, while in the US, the SAR value is calculated over the volume containing a mass of one gram of tissue, it is calculated with 10 grams of tissue in Europe. That said, it doesn’t mean that in Europe, the regulators have allowed a higher limit than in the US as they refer to different amounts of tissue.

While we can only compare two SAR values calculated on the same amount of tissues, as for the measurements in India, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on EMF Radiation which is set up by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology suggested SAR limits for mobile handsets of 2 watts per kg. However, the Indian Government has recently decided to set a new SAR limit of 1.6 watts per kg which would make the Indian standards almost similar to the US standards as both are measured on a mass of one gram of tissue.

How to check SAR value of a smartphone or mobile handset?

1. On a website which collects SAR values of mobile phone models (https://www.sarchecker.com/brand/).

2. On the website of a mobile phone manufacturer

3. Inside the user guide of a device

4. In your mobile phone’s settings (‘general’ or ‘about phone’ section)

5. By dialling *#07# from your smartphone

What studies have found in regards to smartphone radiation levels or SAR value?

The World Health Organization

“To date, research does not suggest any consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at levels below those that cause tissue heating. Further, research has not been able to provide support for a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and self-reported symptoms, or “electromagnetic hypersensitivity,” said WHO.

Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University reported,

“Putting it bluntly (cellphones) are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely… We have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control. Before Edison’s light bulb there was very little electromagnetic radiation in our environment. The levels today are very many times higher than natural background levels, and are growing rapidly because of all the new devices that emit this radiation”.

Interphone study

Most of the published analyses from this study showed no statistically significant increase in brain and central nervous system cancers which are related to higher amounts of cell phone usage. However, a particular analysis showed a statistically significant, but still modest, increase in the risk of glioma in a small number of study participants who spent most of their time on cell phone calls.

Another analysis from this study found no connection between brain tumour locations as well as regions of the brain which were exposed to the highest levels of radio frequency energy coming from cell phones.

Danish study

No association was observed between cell phone usage and the incidence of glioma, acoustic neuroma or meningioma, even among users who had been cell phone subscribers for more than 13 years.

Million women study

Self-reported cell phone usage was not associated with an increased risk of glioma, non-central nervous system tumours, and meningioma. However, the original published findings reported the association with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma but this association was then proven wrong after an additional follow-up of the cohort.

How to reduce cell phone radiation exposure?

1. Use an earpiece, speakerphone or headset to reduce proximity to the head. While wired earpieces might conduct some energy to the head, wireless earpieces also emit a small amount of radio frequency energy. However, wired and wireless earpieces can remove the greatest source of RF energy from proximity to the head, which is the cell phone and thus reduce the total amount of exposure to the head.

2. Start carrying your cell phone away from your body. It could be in a purse, computer bag or briefcase, just not in your pocket where it is directly pressed up against you.

3. Increase the distance between your cell phone and your body while sitting, sleeping or when the device is not in use.

4. Consider texting rather than talking, if possible.

Cell Cycle Radiation Sensitivity, Cell Phone Radiation, Cell Radiation Studies, Cell Tower Radiation Detector App, Handphone Radiation To Baby, Is Smartphone Radiation Bad, Is Smartphone Radiation Dangerous, Is Smartphone Radiation Harmful, Smartphone Radiation And Cancer, Smartphone Radiation Check, Smartphone Radiation Dangers, Smartphone Radiation Exposure, Smartphone Radiation Index, Smartphone Radiation Level Comparison, Smartphone Radiation Levels, Smartphones Emit Radiation

Read More

Are Electromagnetic Fields Carcinogenic?

EMF 0 Comments Cell Phones Safty Cell Towers EMF-home-inspection Nashville Tennessee Home inspections

Let’s verify and take adequate measures for your health

By:  Manas Ganguly, Founder, Brightsandz Clean Tech

Wireless technology has become an integral part of human life. The exponential boom in fast and ubiquitous internet and digital media has led to a steep surge in installation of cellular base stations in residential colonies. Additionally, Wi-Fi routers have also become a common device in every office, home or public place.These wireless technologies and networks lead to increased exposure of Electromagnetic field on human health and environment.

Cell phones, base stations and other wireless devices emit radio frequency waves which are non- ionizing radiation that can easily be absorbed by the tissues of human body. Over the time, the mobile minutes of usage both in terms of voice calls and data has increased which results in excessive emission of EMF. The continuous low level exposure from these wireless networks causes severe health issues related to migraine, anxiety, depression and brain tumour, etc.

According to the reports of International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a part of World Health Organization, radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation from cellular base stations, repeaters and WIFIs and excessive use of cell phones are possibly carcinogenic to humans. The EMF from these terminals can lead to increased risk of cancerous – brain tumour. The All India Institute of Management studies (AIIMS) in a report in March 2017, established a causal relationship between 45 minutes of daily phone call time (with the receiver next to the ear) can lead to 33% increase in risk of brain tumour on a decadal term.

Electromagnetic Fields CarcinogenicSimultaneously, several international researchers are conducting various studies to classify EMF from wireless terminals as carcinogenic. Moreover, their existing studies state that the impact of microwave radiation is more adverse on pregnant women, their foetus and children. Since the body and skull of children are relatively smaller than adults, they are more absorbent to EMF and tissue damage. They have also found several indirect links between Electromagnetic field exposure and childhood leukaemia.

However in this fast evolving world, one cannot consider this as a call to throw off their mobile phones and Wi-Fi routers. But there are adequate measures that can be taken to reduce the impact EMF on body tissues. It is important to make a right choice between a convenient lifestyle and a healthy mind and body for a better life.

The most effective ways to avoid high EMF exposure is to switch off the Wi-Fi routers and maintain adequate distance from all the terminals that emit harmful radiation waves. Even a simple act of using a headphone while talking on mobile phone can be developed as a habit in order to reduce the exposure of radiation field by as much as 50% depending upon the usage of the phone in a day.

Similarly, not keeping electronic appliances and devices such as inverters, Wi-Fi routers and stabilizers in or close to the bedroom area cuts down the radiation exposure and gives a better sleep. These small steps can form the strong base for having a healthy mind and long life.

Read More

11 Myths About Wireless

EMF 0 Comments AC/DC Magnetic Fields Cell Phones Safty Electromagnetic Frequencies EMF-home-inspection Nashville Tennessee Home inspections Wi-Fi

We take wireless technology for granted, even though it is basically “magic.” And that perceived magic has led to myths and fallacies that need to be dispelled.

Myths About WirelessWireless, or radio if you prefer, is a strange and wonderful phenomenon. Voice, music, video, and data miraculously move almost instantaneously from one place to another invisibly through the air. How could that be? Our entire environment is an invisible fog of thousands of electromagnetic waves. The whole phenomenon has been amazing to me since I was a kid. Even though I understand it I am still in awe of the technology.

That said, wireless technology is a complex subject. It has taken me most of my life time to learn it. And I still don’t know it all. But to non-wireless engineers, radio must seem an enigma. There’s much to get accustomed to and understand. What follows are 11 myths about wireless you may not know but should.

1. Wireless was invented by Marconi.

No, it was not. I would give my vote to Heinrich Hertz, who should get more recognition for his earliest demonstration of the concept. But we do use his name as the unit of frequency measurement. As for Marconi, he was a major contributor to the technology and is probably best known for putting the theory into practice. Marconi engineered the early radio equipment and demonstrated its capabilities. The real inventor of radio was Tesla, who did little to advance the science beyond a few clever demonstrations. Tesla was posthumously awarded the U.S. patent in 1943.

2. The Federal Communications Commission is the primary communications regulator.

The FCC implements the rules and regulations regarding most commercial and personal wireless products and applications. They manage the spectrum and define all kinds of guidelines like power, antennas, bandwidth, modulation, and interference. But they aren’t the only U.S. regulatory agency. The other agency that most of you have not encountered is the National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA). The NTIA is the manager and regulator of all government and military wireless spectrum and equipment. It’s a division of the Department of Commerce. They work closely with the FCC to rule the airwaves.

3. Radio waves work like magnetic induction.

Not so. A radio wave is really a combination of an electric field at a right angle to a magnetic field. The two travel together in a direction perpendicular to both fields. As they propagate from the transmitting antenna to the receiving antenna, they stay together. Essentially the fields break away from the antenna, or radiate, and then actually support and rejuvenate one another along the way. The math describing that process was spelled out as far back as 1873 by James Clerk Maxwell. This signal that’s radiated is called the far field. It’s the real radio wave.

The field close to the antenna, typically within one wavelength, is called the near field. Transmission is more by magnetic field than by combined magnetic and electric fields. The near field signal is non-radiative. The near field is really inductive coupling that occurs between the primary and secondary windings of an air core transformer. The near field isn’t the real radio wave.

 

4. The propagation of a radio wave is basically the same for all wireless applications.

No way. Radio signals act differently depending on their frequency. Low-frequency signals in the 50- to 3000-kHz range travel by ground or surface wave. The vertically polarized signal hugs the ground and is mostly dissipated after a few hundred miles.

AM broadcast stations represent one example. Signals in the 3- to 30-MHz range travel by sky wave. The signals essentially are refracted by the ionosphere back to earth. Depending on the angle of radiation, time of day, and the specific ionosphere layer encountered, the signal could travel by skipping long distances nearly around the world. Frequencies over 30 MHz and up into the mmWave range travel by direct line of sight from antenna to antenna. These signals are usually reflected or absorbed, so range is generally limited.

5. We have totally run out of frequency spectrum.

Not completely, but we’re working toward that it seems. Most of the so-called “good” spectrum (~500 MHz to 6 GHz) is pretty much consumed, but plenty of spectrum exists at the higher frequencies beyond about 30 GHz.

Some say there’s a spectrum crisis as more wireless products and services are developed. One contributor to the shortage is the growing Internet of Things (IoT) movement. With billions of new devices coming on line, spectrum usage is something to worry about. But it’s the cellular industry that lusts after spectrum the most. The FCC hosts auctions to sell off available chunks of spectrum when they become available. Billions of dollars are collected.

6. Radio broadcasting is dead.

You may have gotten the impression that AM, FM, and TV broadcasting were on their way out thanks to all the internet streaming of music and video. But it’s not. While the number of AM stations has declined a bit, FM is growing. Satellite radio is also healthy. Furthermore, almost 20% of the U.S. population gets its TV by over-the-air (OTA) broadcasts. This includes satellite TV broadcasting. On top of that, short wave broadcasting is still around; not so much in the U.S., but it’s still big in Europe, the  Middle East, Africa, and other more remote parts of the world.

7. The most widely used wireless standard is Wi-Fi.

Wi-Fi is certainly a heavily used wireless standard. But in terms of sheer volume of radios in use, Bluetooth is probably the more widespread. It’s in all cell phones, most cars and trucks, headphones, speakers, retail beacons, and a mixed bag of other applications. It takes two chips to implement any Bluetooth applications. That’s why billions of Bluetooth radio chips are sold annually.

8. Cell phones give you a brain tumor.

That myth has been around ever since the first cell phones emerged in the late 1980s. It’s been studied multiple times, and the outcome is that cell phones don’t cause brain tumors. Perhaps if you held the phone to your head eight or so hours a day, you may get brain damage. But today, instead the process of holding the phone to your ear and head for a voice call has been replaced by holding the phone in your hands in front of you while you text, read email, or watch a YouTube video. No cancer.

9. Wireless data transfer is always faster than wired data transfer.

Not true. Wired data communications say by Ethernet or fiber optics, is very solid and usually faster than wireless. Ethernet can do 100 Gb/s and optical is now doing up to 400 Gb/s using PAM4. With a solid link, data can be faster because it doesn’t have to deal with all of the free space link and path problems of wireless.

Wireless free space path loss is very high; there’s always noise and interference that limits the data rate. But wireless has come a long way over the years with error correction, multichannel modulation like OFDM, MIMO, and phased arrays. As a result, wireless begins to approach wired speeds. Under ideal conditions, wireless data can hit levels of 10 to 100 Gb/s.

10. Rain and snow make satellite TV, phones, and data services unreliable.

You have probably heard of this one but it not true. Actually, at some frequencies in older systems, rain does attenuate the signal. But today, most components, equipment, and systems compensate for it with good link margins. We would not be using so many satellites if the coverage were iffy. What would we do without things like GPS, worldwide sat phones, space telescopes, and military surveillance?

11. Millimeter waves will never be practical.

Maybe that was true in the past, but today mmWaves are widely used thanks to the availability of semiconductor devices to generate and process these signals. Millimeter waves cover the 30- to 300-GHz range. All sorts of systems use them, especially radar and satellite. The 802.11ad WiGig WLAN products at 60 GHz are now available. Automotive radars use 77 GHz. And many of the forthcoming 5G cellular and fixed wireless access systems use mmWaves. Researchers are working on terahertz wave technology now.

There should be a wireless appreciation day to celebrate its existence. How about every day?

Read More

Copyright 2017 MOTO | All Rights Reserved