Page 1 of 634   Next›  Last» 

iPhone 6 SAR: Radiation Levels and Separation Distance
USA Created: 20 Sep 2014
For both Apple iPhone 6 models, the SAR level for the head is 1,18. When using a body-worn accessory to keep the phone five millimeters from the body, the SAR level is 1.18 for the iPhone 6 and 1.19 for the iPhone 6 Plus. (1, 2) Thus, the minimum separation distance that the phones should be kept from the body is approximately two-tenths of an inch (i.e., 5 millimeters).

Like most cell phones, both new iPhone models have several transmitters that can simultaneously emit microwave radiation, which includes cellular, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth radiation. When all these transmitters are turned on, the SAR value is 1.58 for the iPhone 6 and 1.59 for the iPhone 6 Plus. (1, 2) These levels are very close to the legal limit which is 1.60. To reduce exposure to microwave radiation, turn off any transmitters not in use.

What does this information mean to the consumer?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires all cell phone models to be tested for their Specific Absorption Rate or SAR. The SAR is a measure of the maximum amount of microwave radiation absorbed by the head or the body. It is measured in a laboratory using an artificial model of a large adult male with different fluids to simulate human tissue. The SAR, which is measured in watts per kilogram, represents the maximum amount of energy absorbed in any one gram of tissue in the test model. Phones sold in the U.S. typically range in SAR values from about 0.20 up to the 1.60 legal limit. (3, 4)

The SAR test, adopted in 1996 by the FCC, was criticized by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2012. (5) The test does not reflect those who currently use cell phones, nor does it correspond to the way people use them. Today many children are cell phone users -- the child’s brain absorbs twice the radiation as the adult’s brain. Moreover, the artificial head does not contain any metal (e.g., dental fillings, earrings, or eyeglass frames) which could increase the radiation absorption beyond what the laboratory-generated SAR reflects. (5)

The FCC assumes that consumers will carry their cell phones in a manufacturer-approved holder that keeps the phone a minimum distance from the body. However, people do not reliably keep their phone away from their body in a cell phone holder. For the SAR test, the FCC allows the manufacturer to choose the separation distance between the cell phone and the test model as long as consumers are informed about the minimum distance tested. Few consumers are aware of the manufacturer’s recommended minimum body separation from their cell phone because this information is often difficult to find. Thus, most consumers are in the dark about precautions they can take to keep their exposure to microwave radiation below the legal limit.

To ensure that the cell phone does not exceed the legal limit, consumers should never keep their cell phone in their pockets or next to their skin. The cell phone is not tested directly against the body because most cell phones would fail the SAR test as the radiation absorption increases dramatically when the cell phone is close to the body.

Is the legal limit sufficient to protect the cell phone user’s health?

U.S. Federal policies and practices lead the public to believe that all legally-marketed cell phones are safe, and that a cell phone's SAR doesn't matter as long as it meets the legal limit: 1.6 watts per kilogram. (3, 4)

The Environmental Working Group and other scientific experts point out that the SAR only measures the maximum microwave absorption from cell phone use that perfectly matches laboratory conditions. The SAR is not a good indicator of one’s cumulative microwave exposure under natural conditions. The evidence suggests that how one uses the phone (e.g., hands-free) and one’s cell phone carrier actually matters a great deal more than the phone’s SAR level. (4, 6, 7)

The SAR standard was developed to protect users only from the acute effects of the heat generated by microwave radiation (i.e., the thermal effect). (5) The SAR limit does not protect users from non-thermal effects of cell phone radiation.

Yet, hundreds of laboratory studies with animals and cell samples have found deleterious biologic effects from short-term exposure to low intensity cell phone radiation, including development of stress proteins, micronuclei, free radicals, DNA breakage, and sperm damage. (8) Human studies have also found that brief exposure to cell phone radiation alters brain activity and can open the blood-brain barrier which could enable any chemical toxins in the blood system to penetrate the brain. (9)

Major studies with humans have found increased cancer risk, including a three-fold increase in brain cancer among those who used wireless phones (cell phones and cordless phones) for 25 or more years. (10) Largely based upon this research, the World Health Organization in 2011 declared radiofrequency radiation possibly carcinogenic in humans (Group 2B). (11)

Other risks from cell phone use include reproductive health damage and male infertility, and neurological disorders (e.g., impaired cognitive functioning, headaches and migraines, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder). (12, 13)

Based upon the weight of the evidence from several decades of research, many experts worldwide have signed declarations calling upon government to adopt stronger radiation standards to protect consumers from low intensity, non-thermal exposures from radiation associated with wireless communications, and to alert consumers about how to reduce their risk of harm. (14 -16)

The references tor this news release (http://www.saferemr.com/2014/09/iphone-6-sar-radiation-levels-and.html) and tips on how to reduce exposure to wireless radiation are available at Electromagnetic Radiation Safety (http://www.saferemr.com (17)


Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Contact
Joel M. Moskowitz
***@berkeley.edu
Click here to view the source article.
Source: PRLog, Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, 20 Sep 2014

Obesity is a 'slow motion car crash' that may bankrupt the NHS, says its chief executive
United Kingdom Created: 19 Sep 2014
Simon Stevens said obesity is causing millions to suffer life-long illness, Also revealed the NHS is spending far more on drastic weight loss surgery than trying to prevent the problem in the first place. A quarter of adults and a fifth of children are now considered obese
Next month, Mr Stevens will publish a set of plans to tackle the problem Will see NHS and private firms urged to do more to help staff lose weight.
Obesity is a ‘slow-motion car crash’ which is threatening to bankrupt the NHS, according to its chief executive.

Simon Stevens said the problem is now more deadly than smoking and causing millions to suffer life-long illness and disability.
He also revealed that – absurdly – the NHS is spending far more on drastic weight loss surgery than trying to prevent the problem in the first place.
A quarter of adults and a fifth of children are now considered obese and the rates have almost doubled in 20 years.
And figures show the NHS spends anywhere between £5 billion and £9 billion a year treating obese patients and related complications such as diabetes.

Next month, Mr Stevens will publish a set of plans to tackle the problem which will see the NHS and private firms urged to do more to help staff lose weight.
Doctors and nurses will be encouraged to be healthy role models for patients and hospitals told to ban junk food from canteens.
NHS trusts and private companies will also be urged to help staff lose weight by holding slimming classes, running clubs or just providing bike racks at work.
Mr Stevens, who took up post last April, said: ‘Obesity is the new smoking, and it represents a slow-motion car crash in terms of avoidable illness and rising health care costs.
‘If as a nation we keep piling on the pounds around the waistline, we'll be piling on the pounds in terms of future taxes needed just to keep the NHS afloat.’

By Sophie Borland Health Correspondent For The Daily Mail
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Agnes Ingvarsdottir

Obesity Epidemic driven by Sleep deprivation and Endochrine disruption
USA Created: 18 Sep 2014
US waistlines are continuing to expand, despite obesity appearing to be reaching a plateau, data suggests.

Research suggests the average adult waist size in the US increased by more than 1in (2.5cm) between 1999 and 2012.

But figures for obesity as defined by body mass index (BMI) had changed little over the same period, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

Factors such as lack of sleep may be to blame for growing waistlines.

The researchers, led by Dr Earl Ford, analysed national data on nutrition and health in the US from 1999-2000 to 2011-12.

The study included more than 32,000 men and women over the age of 20.

The researchers found:

- Average waist circumference increased from 37.6in (95.5cm) to 38.8in (98.5cm)
- The average waist circumference for men is now 40in (101cm)
- The average waist circumference for women in now 38in (96cm)
- The average increase in men was 0.8in (2cm); in women 1.5in (3.8cm)
- Abdominal obesity (tummy fat) increased from 46.4% of the population in 1999-2000 to 54.2% in 2011-2012.

The team compared the findings with obesity data.

The researchers found obesity calculated from body mass index (BMI) did not change significantly between 2003 and 2012.

"At a time when the prevalence of obesity may have reached a plateau, the waistlines of US adults continue to expand," the researchers told the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

"The reasons for increases in waist circumference in excess of what would be expected from changes in BMI remain speculative, but several factors, including sleep deprivation, endocrine disruptors, and certain medications, have been proposed as potential explanations."

The research backs recommendations that routine measurement of waist circumference is a key step in controlling obesity.

According to NHS Choices, the risk of some health problems is affected by where body fat is stored, as well as weight.

Carrying too much fat around the middle (waist) can increase the risk of developing conditions such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer.

Amy Thompson, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said more people were carrying extra weight around the middle, including in the UK.

"This increases your risk of heart disease and stroke, but losing weight and reducing your waist size is doable," she said.

"Try cutting down on the calories and getting more active, but don't try to lose weight too quickly.

"Slow and steady weight loss - around 1-2lb [1kg] each week - is healthier."

Related news:
Aug 2010, Sweden: Neighbor to a 3G basestation: "I just couldn't sleep properly"
Feb 2009, Sweden: Sleeping problems correlate with mobile-phone usage
Jan 2009, USA: Use of sleep aids by young U.S. adults soars: study
Nov 2007, Sweden: GSM radiation causes headaches and ruins sleep
Jan 2008, USA: Mobile Phone Radiation Affects Sleep : US Study
Jan 2008, United Kingdom: Mobile phone radiation wrecks your sleep
Apr 2007, United Kingdom: Farmer forced to sleep in his jeep
Click here to view the source article.
Source: BBC News, Helen Briggs, 17 Sep 2014

What's ruining your love life? It could be pills, that one glass of wine, even your mobile phone...
Poland Created: 17 Sep 2014
USING YOUR MOBILE PHONE
Men who carry a mobile phone are at greater risk of erectile dysfunction

Men who carry a mobile phone, switched on, for four hours or more each day are at greater risk of erectile dysfunction than men who use — rather than carry — their phones intermittently, Heat or radio- frequency electromagnetic waves could be to blame. according to the:
Central European Journal of Urology.

Link to the study: Central European Journal of Urology.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3921848/

By Louise Atkinson and Erin Dean and Lesley Dobson. The Daily Mail
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Agnes Ingvarsdottir

The CDC responds to inquiry about the cellphone FAQ change
USA Created: 16 Sep 2014
Dear all,
When I heard of the CDC cellphone FAQ flop-flop, I sent off an email question to the CDC about those changes.
I didn't expect a reply but after a bit of ping-pong, the CDC did finally respond, although not really answering my questions.
See their explanation and the message trail below.

best wishes,
Henrik Eiriksson

PS: thanks to Dr. Joel Moskowitz' press release:
http://www.prlog.org/12359483-cdc-issues-precautionary-health-warnings-about-cell-phone-radiation.html
and Louis Slesin's reporting:
http://microwavenews.com/news-center/cdc-endorses-precaution


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: CDC-INFO Inquiry [ ref:_00DU0YCBU._500U0E049M:ref ]
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:58:38 +0000
From: EHHEinq (CDC)
To:


Dear Mr. Eiriksson:

Thank you for your inquiry; we apologize for the delay in responding.

The National Center for Environmental Health recently participated in a CDC-wide effort to make health information for the public easier to understand. Revision of the cell phone FAQs originally posted in June 2011 was part of that effort. After the new FAQS were posted (June 2014), questions from visitors to the website suggested that the new information reflected a change in CDC policy or recommendations about cell phone use. This was not the intent.
The FAQs underwent additional review and updates in August 2014 to ensure they reflect the latest science regarding what is known about the health effects of cell phone use.
CDC announces changes in public health policy and recommendations through publication in the peer-reviewed literature, usually accompanied by outreach to partners and a press release. We are sorry for any confusion that resulted from the plain language update.

Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects
National Center for Environmental Health
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

------------------------------------ Original Email ------------------------------------

From : Henrik Eiriksson
To :cdcinfo@cdc.gov
Date :2014-09-11 10:14:01
Subject :Re: Fwd: Re: CDC-INFO: Inquiry [ ref:_00DU0YCBU._500U0E049M:ref ]

Dear Sir / Madam,
Thanks for the response. Can you please name the division that my inquiry was forwarded to?

regards,
Henrik Eiriksson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 11/09/14 18:27, CDC INFO wrote:
Thank you for your inquiry to CDC-INFO.

In response to your request regarding precautions in using cellphones, CDC-INFO has forwarded your response to the appropriate division on August 22,2014. They may respond to you directly or CDC-INFO will provide their response to you.

Thank you for contacting CDC-INFO. For more information, please call 1-800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) or visit www.cdc.gov/info.
CDC-INFO is a service of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). This service is provided by Verizon and its subcontractors under the Networx Universal contract to CDC and ATSDR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X.E.


--------------- Original Message ---------------

From: Henrik Eiriksson [henrik@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 9/11/2014 8:36 AM
To: cdcinfo@cdc.gov
Subject: Fwd: Re: CDC-INFO: Inquiry [ ref:_00DU0YCBU._500U0E049M:ref ]

Dear Sir / Madam,
I'm sending a follow-up since I have not yet received a reply to the below inquiry.

regards,
Henrik Eiriksson

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: CDC-INFO: Inquiry [ ref:_00DU0YCBU._500U0E049M:ref ]
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:19:28 +0200
From: Henrik Eiriksson
Organization:
To: CDC INFO

Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your reply.

The CDC website address in question is:
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/cell_phones._FAQ.html

Copy of previous version of the above page that was updated june 9 with the cautionary language:
http://microwavenews.com/sites/default/files/docs/CDC.NCEH_.CellPhoneFAQ.6.2014.pdf

Regards,
Henrik Eiriksson

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 22/08/14 20:53, CDC INFO wrote:
Thank you for your inquiry to CDC-INFO.

So CDC can verify the most current information and best respond to your inquiry, would you please provide the CDC website address you are referring to?
This information will help us respond to your inquiry.
CDC-INFO is a service of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). This service is provided by Verizon and its contractors under the Networx Universal contract to CDC and ATSDR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X.E.
--------------- Original Message ---------------

From: [cdcinfoforms@cdc.gov]
Sent: 8/21/2014 5:48 AM
To:cdcinfo@cdc.gov
Subject: CDC-INFO: Inquiry
Subject: CDC u-turn on cellphone precaution
From: General Public
Email Address:henrik@xxxxxxxxxxx

Your Question: Dear Sir / Madam,

On june 9 the CDC amended its FAQ on cellphone use to recommend precaution:
"Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use"

Now, suddenly, on 20 aug. that precautionary advice has been removed.
Please explain the reason for that change.

Also, on the updated FAQ the CDC now states:
"There is no scientific evidence that provides a definite answer to that question"

Please explain exactly what the CDC deems as "definitive" evidence in the context of evaluating the science on cellphone and wireless radiation. In other words: exactly how much scientific certainty of risk does the CDC require before urging precaution in using cellphones/wireless tech.?
Please also clarify why an agency tasked with disease prevention is waiting for definitive evidence.


Optional Information

Contact: Henrik Eiriksson
ref:_00DU0YCBU._500U0E049M:ref
Source: Henrik Eiriksson, via email, 16 Sep 2014

EU regulative:Risks assessment of electromagnetic fields at the workplace, For EMPLOYERS!
United Kingdom Created: 14 Sep 2014
Directive 2013/35/EU - electromagnetic fields
of 26 June 2013 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (20th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and repealing Directive 2004/40/EC

As stakeholders had expressed serious concerns regarding Directive 2004/40/EC, the Commission has prepared a new proposal to better address the issues and repeal the former Directive.

Objective

This Directive covers all known direct biophysical effects and other indirect effects caused by electromagnetic fields. However, the Directive currently only addresses short-term effects and does not concern possible long term effects.

Definitions

Definition of terms "electromagnetic fields", "direct biophysical effects", "indirect effects", "exposure limit values (ELVs)", "health effects ELVs", "sensory effects ELVs", "action levels (ALs)".

Contents

Risks assessment of electromagnetic fields at the workplace (if necessary including measurements and calculations, if necessary) should be carried out in line with the Framework Directive. Assessment of occupational exposure can be skipped if evaluation for the general public has already been completed and if the specific equipments is intended for the public use. The employer shall consider updating the risk assessment and the prevention measures if workers report transient symptoms in relation to their sensory/neural system.

The employer shall eliminate or reduce to a minimum the risks that arise from electromagnetic fields at the workplace in line with the principles of the Framework Directive. If relevant action levels are and relevant exposure limit values may be exceeded, the employer shall implement an action plan in order to ensure that the latter is not exceeded. Certain derogations apply to limit values.

Special attention shall be paid to workers at particular risks (pregnant, living with implanted medical devices) including individual risk assessment, where applicable.

Signs and access restrictions shall be specified and workers shall be trained and thoroughly informed.

Health surveillance shall be carried out and the findings thereof preserved.

The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts: technically update the Annexes containing the limit values in line with the latest scientific evidence. A non-binding practical guide shall be issued six months prior to the transposition deadline, which is of 1 July 2016.

This Directive repealed Directive 2004/40/EC (see Annex IV for reference).

The current situation in each Member State must not regress as a result of implementing this Directive.

The values are based on the recommendations of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

Annexes

Physical quantities regarding the exposure to electromagnetic fields
Non-thermal effects exposure limit values and action levels in the frequency range from 0 Hz to 10 MHz
Thermal effects exposure limit values and action levels in the frequency range from 100 kHz to 300 GHz
Correlation table

Read the full text of this Directive
National laws implementing this Directive
Further information on this topic
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Agnes Ingvarsdottir

Sensory Perspective is making a small detector
United Kingdom Created: 14 Sep 2014
Sensory Perspective, the manufacturer of "the originalElectrosmog Detector" has partnered with Crowdcube, the world'sleading Equity Investment Crowdfunding platform, to raise capital inorder to launch its new products globally".

Sensory is the FIRST company in the EMR Healthcare Sector to take this step, and to go out to the public to sell its shares for as little as a £10 investment. (Wouldn't it feel good to own shares in a company that is doing something for all of us?)

One of the reasons Sensory is raising this expansion capital is to allow it to launch an exciting new high-quality low-cost (£35) cigar-shaped detector (a red version of which is shown on Sensory's own landing page, marked "coming Soon!"). It is called Sherlock!

http://www.detect-protect.com

Whether one wants to invest or not, Sensory's 9-minute EMR Video at Crowdcube is shocking, informative, and worth seeing.

http://vimeo.com/101321362
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Agnes Ingvarsdottir

Legal and Public Health Problems of the Wireless Age
USA Created: 13 Sep 2014
The use of Wi-Fi and other wireless technologies has created problems. “An Open Letter to Phillips Exeter Academy about Wi-Fi”, which I wrote to my alma mater, details the public health problem Wi-Fi has created and some legal ramifications of its use.

Some people who lived too close to TV broadcast and radar towers developed symptoms of Microwave Sickness, a condition observed in military and industrial occupational settings during the Cold War. The next wave of microwave-emitting infrastructure, cell towers, lived up to the billing of their military and industry-owned cousins with subsequent studies (none were commissioned in the United States) showing elevated numbers of people within 1,500 feet experiencing symptoms of Microwave Sickness. (Twenty-one years ago, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) had recommended siting towers away from schools and hospitals; some municipalities used their zoning rights under the 1996 Telecom Act to create setbacks from these institutions as well as residences, places of worship and recreation areas in the name of protecting property values.)

Today, Microwave Sickness is known as Electro-hypersensitivity (EHS). Symptoms can include but are not limited to extreme pounding headaches, blood pressure and heart rate changes, and muscular weakness in the presence of Wi-Fi and commensurate exposures. In Sweden, the government acknowledges that the problem, which it terms a functional impairment, is affecting 3% of its population and provides accommodation in the form of hospitals without Wi-Fi, wireless-free transport, schools and workplaces and wired and shielded housing to accommodate people.

Microwave Sickness accelerated as warnings and recommendations were ignored and transmitters were placed closer to living and working environments; radiation exposure is driven more by proximity to the transmitter than by its total power output which is why a Wi-Fi’ed area can expose people to more radiation than if there were a cell tower on the premises. (If being certain distances from a cell tower created problems, obviously getting even higher radiation doses continuously would be more problematic.) People used to be able to move away from a cell tower or shield their homes to an extent; not so with Wi-Fi, which is ubiquitously indoors…and increasingly outdoors in the public square with rollouts in parks and city streets. Therefore, what was formally a problem of geography has turned into one of public health. Wi-Fi has a much shorter range than a cell tower, but someone who is sensitive to microwave radiation must keep a wide berth from the routers.

The National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) in conjunction with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (the United States Access Board) put out a report in 2005 that stated that for a building to be accessible, Wi-Fi should be avoided in favor of fiber optic connectivity; if used, Wi-Fi was to be confined by foil-backed drywall or equivalent barrier. Instead, Wi-Fi is spilling out into the indoor building environment -- in schools, hospitals, doctors offices, libraries and municipal buildings, many of which are completely inaccessible to those with EHS (if the transmitters aren’t shut off in the areas that must be used). Institutions in the U.S. which refuse accommodation to those with severe electromagnetic sensitivities are engaging in unlawful behavior; this is a frequent occurrence. Sweden and other countries figured out that there is something very wrong with not providing medical care (and other necessary services) to part of their population; U.S hospitals are still getting the memo while simultaneously putting in more microwave-emitting MBANS (Mobile Body Area Networks) thanks to a partnership (rife with conflicts of interest) between the FCC and GE Healthcare.

I explain in my letter to Exeter how many Americans are misdiagnosed, so they don’t even know that they can be asymptomatic by practicing avoidance to certain exposures and that they could safely access buildings (not having symptoms triggered) by exercising their civil rights. Notwithstanding a media blackout in the US, Americans eventually may figure out what some European governments and officials openly acknowledge; continuous exposure to certain levels of microwave radiation is impairing peoples’ health. As with sensitivities and other allergies, the effects occur on a continuum; some experience varying degrees of imminent impairment and un-wellness, while some will develop disease over the longer-term; studies of microwave radiation link exposures that are commensurate with those created by current use-age patterns to the development of diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s.

While Murray v. Motorola Inc., 982 A.2d 764 (D.C. 2009), prohibits lawsuits on brain tumors caused by cell phones manufactured after 1996 and the U.S. Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) managed to get the City of San Francisco, see 2012 WL 390068 (9th Cir.), to retract a city law that would have mandated point-of sale disclosure of radiation emissions to the head and body from cell phone use by claiming the government couldn’t “compel speech” from corporations, the links between cell phone exposure and brain tumors are accepted in both European medical circles and the judiciary. Other impediments to litigation were created by Cellular Phone Taskforce v. FCC, 205 F.3d 82, 90-92 (2d.Cir. 2000), which deemed the adoption of federal safety guidelines set by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), an industry association, the functional equivalent of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review.

In contrast, the German government recommends its citizens not use Wi-Fi; the Swiss government acknowledges that biological effects occur below international guidelines; and members of the international medical and scientific community, including some U.S. government agencies and agency representatives (the Department of the Interior (DOI), the U.S. Access Board, NIBS, and the Interagency Working Group on Radiofrequency Radiation) suggest that U.S. guidelines which are for 30 minutes of exposure should not be extrapolated for continual exposure past that time period. A point that has been lost on most is that many people are getting more cumulative radiation from working in a Wi-Fi’ed environment than they are getting from their cellphones. Putting aside the aforementioned accessibility issue for a moment, CA has a law on the books that restricts use of toxic substances in schools for K-6 and mandates warning labels for other grades. While one person’s toxic substance is apparently another person’s convenience, a WHO-designated Group 2B (possible) carcinogen that is a known neurotoxin should mandate warnings for Wi-Fi routers, laptops and tablets. In April, the Israeli Supreme Court indicated that more than warnings may be needed when it filed a conditional injunction that would prevent the use of Wi-Fi in schools by the Ministry of Education.

In addition to Wi-Fi and cell phones, the roll out of wireless utility “smart” meters on homes has brought high-powered transmitter infrastructure in closer to areas people inhabit, creating even greater radiation exposures. (See my article, “Rise of the Machines”, which compares Wi-Fi and smart meter exposure, and Karl Maret’s, MD, Eng. presentation at the San Francisco Commonwealth Club, which compares smart meter and cell tower emissions.) In May, HUD forced a conciliation agreement with a municipality to remove wireless water meter infrastructure that was making a resident sick. (Saskatchewan, Canada has been more aggressive -- announcing the removal of all 105,000 wireless utility meters from their province a few weeks ago.)

Last year, the FCC put out a request for comment on wireless standards, and many experts weighed in stating that the standards are inadequate. Also, notwithstanding the Murray holding, this month 29 lawsuits from plaintiffs who allege cell phones manufactured before 1996 caused brain tumors entered the discovery phase. Judge Frederick Weisberg of the D.C. Superior Court ruled that independent experts could testify about causation and, in what could be interpreted as a rebuke to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (that deferentially allowed industry to set its own standards), stated that “Federal law is the supreme law of the land, but there is no constitutional provision that says federal facts are the supreme facts of the land. Federal law can preempt state law, but it cannot preempt scientific fact. The scientific truth, whatever it may be, lies outside of the FCC’s regulations about what is 'safe' or 'unsafe.'"

Yannon v. New York Telephone, 86 A.D.2d 241; 450 N.Y.S2d 893 (App Div., 982), a case which identified Microwave Sickness as a compensable disability, revealed an inconvenient truth early on that the wireless industry continues to deny. Courts in Germany, Spain and Australia have since made similar rulings. The difference between most contemporary sufferers of EHS and the Yannon victim is that they are developing the sickness from publicly allowable exposures in non-occupational settings, not merely having pre-existing conditions exacerbated by these exposures. The EU acknowledges that the number of people developing EHS is growing exponentially. Perhaps having learned from tobacco, lead, chlorofluorocarbons and asbestos, insurance companies have sounded warnings and declined to provide re-insurance; they are not planning on being one of the parties left without a chair when the music stops.

The Israeli Supreme Court issued its conditional injunction on the basis of the report that 8.5% of students were exhibiting symptoms of sensitivity to microwave radiation in the classroom (as well as on the basis of expert scientific testimony). While the remedying of public health issues tends to have a calculus that is inversely proportional to the power of the industry creating them and the popularity of (or addiction to) the product causing the issue in question, at first blush, assuming that the strength of the Wi-Fi in schools in Israel and the U.S. are similar, these numbers would suggest that most school districts are violating public endangerment statutes, such as N.Y. Penal Law §120.20.

The current proposal by the New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DOITT) to turn 7,500 payphones in New York City and 2,500 additional locations into high-powered wireless hotspots would cause the city to engage in systemic violations of its own code. The New York City Human Rights Law offers reasonable accommodation to persons with many medical conditions including pregnant women (as of January, 2014). The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) issued recommendations in 2012 stating that people with most medical conditions would benefit from avoiding electromagnetic and radiofrequency radiation exposure, and epidemiologist Devra Davis stated that pregnant women should avoid proximity to wireless routers at a press conference in New York City in June, 2014. Today, pregnant women and people with many medical conditions can assert reasonable accommodation by getting routers turned off indoors; once the hotspots, which are much higher powered than a router, are rolled out, the sidewalks will become inaccessible to some; others will not be able to follow doctors’ orders if they must go to the city of New York and simply walk on a street.

The FCC’s claims of safety cannot negate these legal realities.
By Deborah Kopald.
Read original story at link below:
http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2014/09/legal-and-public-health-problems-of-the-wireless-age.html


Click here to view the source article.
Source: Deborah Kopald/Agnes Ingvarsdottir

Steve Jobs Was a Low-Tech Parent
USA Created: 11 Sep 2014
When Steve Jobs was running Apple, he was known to call journalists to either pat them on the back for a recent article or, more often than not, explain how they got it wrong. I was on the receiving end of a few of those calls. But nothing shocked me more than something Mr. Jobs said to me in late 2010 after he had finished chewing me out for something I had written about an iPad shortcoming.

“So, your kids must love the iPad?” I asked Mr. Jobs, trying to change the subject. The company’s first tablet was just hitting the shelves. “They haven’t used it,” he told me. “We limit how much technology our kids use at home.”

I’m sure I responded with a gasp and dumbfounded silence. I had imagined the Jobs’s household was like a nerd’s paradise: that the walls were giant touch screens, the dining table was made from tiles of iPads and that iPods were handed out to guests like chocolates on a pillow.

Nope, Mr. Jobs told me, not even close.

Since then, I’ve met a number of technology chief executives and venture capitalists who say similar things: they strictly limit their children’s screen time, often banning all gadgets on school nights, and allocating ascetic time limits on weekends.

I was perplexed by this parenting style. After all, most parents seem to take the opposite approach, letting their children bathe in the glow of tablets, smartphones and computers, day and night.

Yet these tech C.E.O.’s seem to know something that the rest of us don’t.

Chris Anderson, the former editor of Wired and now chief executive of 3D Robotics, a drone maker, has instituted time limits and parental controls on every device in his home. “My kids accuse me and my wife of being fascists and overly concerned about tech, and they say that none of their friends have the same rules,” he said of his five children, 6 to 17. “That’s because we have seen the dangers of technology firsthand. I’ve seen it in myself, I don’t want to see that happen to my kids.”

The dangers he is referring to include exposure to harmful content like pornography, bullying from other kids, and perhaps worse of all, becoming addicted to their devices, just like their parents.

Alex Constantinople, the chief executive of the OutCast Agency, a tech-focused communications and marketing firm, said her youngest son, who is 5, is never allowed to use gadgets during the week, and her older children, 10 to 13, are allowed only 30 minutes a day on school nights.

Evan Williams, a founder of Blogger, Twitter and Medium, and his wife, Sara Williams, said that in lieu of iPads, their two young boys have hundreds of books (yes, physical ones) that they can pick up and read anytime.

So how do tech moms and dads determine the proper boundary for their children? In general, it is set by age.

Children under 10 seem to be most susceptible to becoming addicted, so these parents draw the line at not allowing any gadgets during the week. On weekends, there are limits of 30 minutes to two hours on iPad and smartphone use. And 10- to 14-year-olds are allowed to use computers on school nights, but only for homework.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

“We have a strict no screen time during the week rule for our kids,” said Lesley Gold, founder and chief executive of the SutherlandGold Group, a tech media relations and analytics company. “But you have to make allowances as they get older and need a computer for school.”

Some parents also forbid teenagers from using social networks, except for services like Snapchat, which deletes messages after they have been sent. This way they don’t have to worry about saying something online that will haunt them later in life, one executive told me.

Although some non-tech parents I know give smartphones to children as young as 8, many who work in tech wait until their child is 14. While these teenagers can make calls and text, they are not given a data plan until 16. But there is one rule that is universal among the tech parents I polled.

“This is rule No. 1: There are no screens in the bedroom. Period. Ever,” Mr. Anderson said.

While some tech parents assign limits based on time, others are much stricter about what their children are allowed to do with screens.

Ali Partovi, a founder of iLike and adviser to Facebook, Dropbox and Zappos, said there should be a strong distinction between time spent “consuming,” like watching YouTube or playing video games, and time spent “creating” on screens.

“Just as I wouldn’t dream of limiting how much time a kid can spend with her paintbrushes, or playing her piano, or writing, I think it’s absurd to limit her time spent creating computer art, editing video, or computer programming,” he said.

Others said that outright bans could backfire and create a digital monster.

Dick Costolo, chief executive of Twitter, told me he and his wife approved of unlimited gadget use as long as their two teenage children were in the living room. They believe that too many time limits could have adverse effects on their children.

“When I was at the University of Michigan, there was this guy who lived in the dorm next to me and he had cases and cases of Coca-Cola and other sodas in his room,” Mr. Costolo said. “I later found out that it was because his parents had never let him have soda when he was growing up. If you don’t let your kids have some exposure to this stuff, what problems does it cause later?”

I never asked Mr. Jobs what his children did instead of using the gadgets he built, so I reached out to Walter Isaacson, the author of “Steve Jobs,” who spent a lot of time at their home.

“Every evening Steve made a point of having dinner at the big long table in their kitchen, discussing books and history and a variety of things,” he said. “No one ever pulled out an iPad or computer. The kids did not seem addicted at all to devices.”
Click here to view the source article.
Source: New York Times, NICK BILTON, 11 Sep 2014

Cell phone effects: Testicular proteome modified
Iran Created: 11 Sep 2014
The controversy over the potential health effects of electromagnetic radiation associated with cell phones has been fuelled by new research originating in Iran - A team of scientists from Shiraz University has found that electromagnetic fields change the proteome of rat testes, with implications for fertility.

There has been conflicting evidence over the last decade on the harmful nature of these EMFs. For instance, some studies have suggested that they do not affect the brain whereas others have found the opposite. Most notably, a recent study from Greece revealed that 143 proteins in the mouse brain were affected, including some from the regions dealing with learning and memory. The same type of radiation is emitted by wireless transmitters and wireless computer equipment, so the effects might be more widespread than first anticipated.

Now, Masood Sepehrimanesh, Nasrin Kazemipour, Mehdi Saeb and Saeed Nazifi have turned their attention to the testis, comparing the protein expressions from animals exposed to an EMF with those that were not exposed. Their main focus was on proteins that were induced or completely inhibited, rather than those which underwent a partial change in expression.
Lab rats exposed to EMF

Over 30 days, ten rats were exposed daily to 900 MHz radiation for 1, 2 or 4 hours and ten others were sham exposed under the same conditions in the cage. After this period, they were sacrificed and the proteins extracted from the testes.

The protein components in the extracts were separated by 2D SDS-PAGE under a protocol designed to minimise technical variations. Each testis sample was analysed in triplicate and all of the samples were prepared at the same time by a single technician using the same apparatus.

The separated proteins on the gel were visualised with a silver stain and those that were present only in the irradiated group or the sham group were marked as candidates for identification by mass spectrometry following digestion with trypsin.
Protein oxidation induced

The total number of protein spots on the gels ranged from 365 to 439 but there was little difference between the protein patterns for all three exposure groups. The overall protein concentrations and weights of the testes were not affected by the EMF treatment but there were some differences in individual proteins.

Significantly, 18 proteins were found only in the exposed group and 16 in the sham exposed group. They were not a result of thermal damage to the testes because the temperatures were maintained at 23°C during the whole program. The strongest and best separated spots, numbering 7 and 6 in the exposed and sham exposed groups, respectively, were analysed.

One of the proteins that disappeared following irradiation is Cu-Zn superoxide dismutase which offers major protection against oxygen toxicity in the testis. Its absence was attributed to the lack of viable spermatogonia, immature stem cells that form spermatocytes, where it is normally found in large quantities. If validated in further research, this effect alone is a serious consequence of EMFs.

The appearance of type II peroxiredoxin 1 in the testis after exposure to the EMF was due to over-oxidation of its cysteine residues. The occurrence of oxidative stress was supported by the appearance of heat shock proteins, possibly induced to combat the formation of free radicals, and the loss of valosin-containing protein due to the oxidative S-thiolation of cysteine residues.

Other affected proteins were related to metabolism and cytoskeletal processes within the testis. So, several different processes within the testis appear to be affected by the impact of EMFs.

The research team acknowledge that their findings will have to be confirmed by complementary studies using other methods like Western blotting and immunohistochemical procedures. However, if the protein alterations can be repeated, then exposure to EMFs from cell phones and wifi equipment will have to be reconsidered by national and international health organisations as they could have a bearing on male fertility.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Spectroscopy Now, Steve Down, 01 Sep 2014

 Page 1 of 634   Next›  Last»