News for USA

 Page 1 of 165   Next›  Last» 

Letter: Protecting ourselves from two-way microwave radiation
USA Created: 22 Jun 2017
Some may remember back in the 1990s when the first oncologist said his patient died of unusual tumors on the side of her brain that lined up with the antennas in her cell phone. Most folks today don’t realize that all wireless devices, from cell towers to routers, cell phones to tablets, baby monitors to gaming devices and wearables, all operate off of the same two-way microwave radiation.

For years, world scientists have been researching the effects of this low-level, non-ionizing radiation. Thousands of studies have been done, with the vast majority showing biological harm in the form of cancer, infertility, autism, Alzheimer’s, cognitive impairment, behavioral and learning issues, digital addiction, insomnia, headaches, skin rashes, racing heart, ringing ears, nosebleeds and more.

The U.S. National Toxicology Program is in the midst of a multi-year, $25 million landmark study on this type of radiation. In the first set of peer-reviewed findings, they discovered statistically significant DNA damage, and brain and heart tumors with none in the control group. More findings are expected at the end of this year.

Massachusetts is taking a leadership role in protecting the public. Ashland Public Schools has become the first in the nation to take measures while awaiting further instruction from state leaders. Ashland has posted signs in each classroom advising wireless devices be turned off when not in use, wireless access points be turned on only when needed, and as the manufacturers’ fine print indicates, never keep an active device on one’s body.

On Beacon Hill, five legislators have introduced bills to address wireless radiation and public health. The first two bills are scheduled for public hearing on Tuesday, June 20, 1-4 p.m. Senator Michael O. Moore’s S.1864 will give residents the right to choose a non-radiation-emitting public utility meter (gas, electric, water, solar, etc.). Senator Julian Cyr’s S.108 addresses safe use of hand-held devices by children.

In the fall, additional bills by Senator Karen Spilka, Senator Cyr, Senator Donald Humason and Representative Carolyn Dykema will come up for public hearing to educate our doctors, schools and the general public on wireless radiation risks and safer technology practices.

Until these bills are enacted and/or biologically safe mobile technology is brought to market, there are simple but important measures we can all choose to reduce our radiation exposure: connect to the internet via hard-wired fiber optics and Ethernet cables, then turn off the wireless emissions at work, home, school and leisure spaces. When on the go, keep devices in airplane mode except when needed as this disables the radiation transmissions, and never give a child a wireless device in active mode.

Other best practices are to create radiation-free white zones, especially in sleeping areas so the radiation doesn’t disrupt our body’s ability to cell repair while we sleep. Distances of a quarter to a half mile (for those with health complications) minimum should be established from cell towers, including the street-level antennas being installed in neighborhoods to support 5G infrastructure.

More than 200 leading scientists and public health experts have submitted an International Appeal to the World Health Organization and United Nations seeking their leadership in bringing public policy in line with current scientific evidence of harm.

Following the lead from France, Israel, Russia and other countries, Massachusetts legislators are to be congratulated for taking important first steps to protect the commonwealth’s residents.

Those wishing to learn more and/or submit testimony for the bills are encouraged to go to http://tinyurl.com/MA-EMF-Bills

Cece Doucette lives in Ashland.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Metro West Daily News, Cece Doucette, 20 Jun 2017

Smartphones made his kids ‘moody’ and ‘withdrawn.’ Now he wants to ban them for preteens
USA Created: 21 Jun 2017
Colorado dad and Denver-area anesthesiologist Tim Farnum has always understood the intrigue of modern technology. Smartphones, tablets and unfettered Internet access connect us to faraway corners of the world and make life — and movie watching — all the more convenient.

But the father of five is not convinced these devices are beneficial for children, a conclusion he came to after his two youngest sons, ages 11 and 13, got smartphones last year.

“There were some real problems,” Farnum, 49, told The Washington Post. “If you tell them to watch the screen time, all of a sudden the fangs come out.”

As he tells it, his once energetic and outgoing boys became moody, quiet and reclusive. They never left their bedrooms, and when he tried to take away the phones, one of Farnum’s sons launched into a temper tantrum that the dad described as equivalent to the withdrawals of a crack addict.

So Farnum started researching the side effects of screen time on kids and found statistics that astonished him. Too much technology too soon can impair brain development, hinder social skills and trigger an unhealthy reliance on the neurotransmitter dopamine, a high similar to what drug and alcohol addicts feel.

Farnum read it all, then said he thought to himself: “Someone has got to do something.”

In February, he formed the nonprofit PAUS (Parents Against Underage Smartphones) with a few other medical professionals and began drafting a ballot initiative that, if passed, would make Colorado the first state in the nation to establish legal limits on smartphones sales to children.

Farnum’s proposal, ballot initiative no. 29, would make it illegal for cellphone providers to sell smartphones to children under the age of 13. The ban would require retailers to ask customers the age of the primary user of the smartphone and submit monthly adherence reports to the Colorado Department of Revenue.

The department would be responsible for creating a website portal for the reports and would investigate violations and collect penalties. The first violation would incur a written warning. A second would produce a $500 fine, and the amount would double with each subsequent incident.

The initiative has garnered “overwhelming” support from parents and grandparents who worry that too much technology can stunt imaginations and appreciation for the outdoors, he claims. But Farnum also faces opposition from others, including some lawmakers, who believe that it’s a parental responsibility, not one for government.

“Frankly, I think it should remain a family matter,” Colorado state Sen. John Kefalas (D-Fort Collins) told the Coloradan. “I know there have been different proposals out there regarding the Internet and putting filters on websites that might put kids at risk. I think ultimately, this comes down to parents … making sure their kids are not putting themselves at risk.”

Farnum told The Post he understands the pushback from those who see this as a parental responsibility and a law as an encroachment on parental power, but said his group sees premature smartphone access as a danger equivalent to smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol or watching pornography.

“We have age restrictions on all those things because they’re harmful to kids,” Farnum said. “This is no different, in my opinion.”

The proposal also distinguishes smartphones from other cellular devices like standard flip phones that cannot access the Internet, because many parents just want to be able to contact their children for safety reasons.

Though the goal is to curb what Farnum described as the corporate interest of cellphone companies and app makers from latching onto the younger generations, he admitted that there is also an educational component his crusade. Many parents don’t know the dangers of excessive technology usage, he said, or the permanent damage it can do to their children.

Because iPads and tablets are even entering the classroom at an earlier age, Farnum said it is a “real struggle” for parents to feel like they have control over their children’s exposure to technology.

“Hopefully this helps and pushes the conversation forward,” Farnum told The Post.

The nonprofit has cleared some of the initial hurdles that come with proposing new legislation, but still has a long road ahead. PAUS will need to collect roughly 100,000 signatures over the next year and a half to get the issue on the ballot in the fall of 2018.

By the end of June, Farnum plans to have the official petition printed and ready for signatures. Colorado does not accept digital petition signatures, so Farnum and his group will have to collect support the old-fashioned way.

“It’s kind of ironic, perhaps,” he said. “We’re going to have to go knock on doors and sit outside grocery stores. It’s slowly gaining steam.”

Next week, Farnum, who characterizes his views as “fairly libertarian,” is meeting with the most liberal democratic senator in the state. But he is trying to keep the initiative away from partisan politics.

“I think it’s good that we’re all going to get to vote on it,” he said. “The parents all have to come together and do this.”

At home, Farnum’s two young sons no longer have smartphones — at least for now. They spent much of their second semester of the school year nearly technology free, and he says he saw a notable difference.

They laughed again and wanted to be outdoors.

One, Farnum recalled, even offered a striking admission: “’Hey dad, I really like reading now.’”
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Washington Post, Katie Mettler, 19 Jun 2017

After 2 Children Diagnosed with Cancer, Kids and Parents Protest Cell Tower on School Grounds
USA Created: 10 Jun 2017
RIPON -- In a colorful protest, about two dozen Weston Elementary school kids in Ripon skipped class on Wednesday and demanded that the Ripon Unified School District remove what they believe is a cancer causing agent.

“Take down that cell tower,” Kyle Prime, a cancer survivor, said.

"Having a cell phone tower on a school ground, it's... in 2011 it was classified as a known carcinogen so that tells me that it shouldn't be around our children,” Prime's mother, Kellie, told FOX40.

Kyle, 11, was diagnosed with cancer last year.

"I had a Wilms' tumor in my left kidney,” Kyle said.

Another parent, Monica Ferrulli said her 10-year-old son, Mason, was diagnosed six months later.

"I had brain cancer,” Mason said.

Both mothers said it was devastating to learn of their sons' diagnoses. They believe the radiation from the communications tower, which was installed in 2009 on the school’s campus, may be the reason their sons got sick.

"It's there. It's very, very close to the buildings. The kids are there, six, seven hours a day,” Prime said.

The American Cancer Society said there is very little evidence that these towers cause cancer. Even so, Ferrulli said she has demanded answers from the school district only to remain in the dark.

"They don't know when it's tested, what the last radiation levels that were tested. How often it's tested,” Ferrulli said.

We’ve called, emailed the school board and even showed up to the superintendent’s office but administrators told us she wasn’t available. No one would comment. Now, both boys are cancer free but their parents, who are fighting to keep it that way, said they might have to transfer their kids to a different school for their health.

"At this point we just have to eliminate any possible factors that could cause it to come back,” Ferrulli said.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Fox40, Kay Recede, 31 May 2017

A public health revolution can reduce the growing cancer burden for the young
USA Created: 9 Jun 2017
As national debate swirls about whether health plans should cover pre-existing conditions, we need to ask how we can reduce the demand for health care in the first place. Every administration since President Carter has recognized the undeniably high and continuing costs of dealing with lead in drinking water and the residues of the tobacco epidemic make clear the value of preventing or curbing toxic exposures.

For those dangers, only after irrefutable evidence that people had become sick and died were steps taken to reduce dangerous conditions. But when it comes to curtailing other avoidable environmental health threats, U.S. authorities seem to be taking a show me the bodies approach.

No where is that more evident than when it comes to how we are treating cellphones and wireless radiation and our children today. Spurred by growing independent scientific reports linking wireless microwave radiation to a range of health problems, policies to reduce exposures especially for children are moving forward in France, Israel, Argentina, India and Taiwan. In contrast in the U.S. we are caught up in a well-financed national push for more and more wireless in more and more places, making it faster and easier to download virtual reality porn, videos, and apps for infants, toddlers, and elementary school children.

United States policy makers are on the verge of funding platforms that would immerse our children and ourselves with newer, faster forms of wireless radiation that have never been tested for safety. Legislation that would allow the blanketing of our communities with several thousand new 30-foot tall antennas installed every hundred paces is being pushed forward overriding objections from property owners or schools.

Outside the United States, educating children and young adults about reducing exposures to cellphone radiation has become a critical international public health concern. In high-tech countries like Israel, France, and Belgium, phones must be sold with headsets and information about keeping phones off the brain and body.

What’s driving this international push to reduce exposures? Studies tying long-term cell phone use to malignant brain cancer have become stronger since 2011 when the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed a possible link. The World Health Organization reports a global increase of 13 percent in childhood cancer incidence over two decades.

In the United Kingdom, rates of malignant brain cancer have risen while those of other forms of brain cancer have dropped. Rates of malignant brain tumors in the United States have now surpassed leukemia as the top cause of cancer deaths in adolescents and young adults. Furthermore, the American Cancer Society reports millennials have four times more colorectal cancers than baby boomers.

Some scientists argue that cancer is “just bad luck.” But these troubling increases in unusual and highly malignant cancer in the young cannot simply be chalked up to sudden random shifts in our genes or radical improvements in the ability to find the disease. We have to ask whether the phenomenal explosion of personal cellphones kept close to the body for hours per day and other changes in our shared environment could underlie these perplexing increases.

Growing numbers of neurosurgeons believe that a lousy role of the dice cannot explain increasing incidence of young adult cancers and that part of the explanation for this surge in malignant brain cancer lies in our love affair with cellphones. Massachusetts state legislators are tackling this important issue with bills in process that inform the public about wireless radiation and explain how to reduce exposures. Using speakerphones and headsets; using airplane mode when carrying phones in a pocket, and other precautions to distance the device from our bodies are becoming standard practice.

Concerns about cellphones are not new. What is new is that more scientific studies have emerged warranting the need to reduce exposures to cellphone radiation emissions. The industry that is profiting from the rapid growth of cellphones has long tried to keep the health hazards of this technology a secret. But all of that is changing. A newly published report in the American Journal of Epidemiology finds that Canadians who have used cellphones for 558 hours or more have more than a doubled risk of brain cancer. These findings strengthen the association between cellphone use and glioma, an aggressive type of brain cancer.

Thanks to independent FCC certified tests from RF Exposure Lab in San Marcos, we know that when popular phones are tested in positions directly against the body, such as in the pocket, the body absorbs 3 to 4 times more radiation than tests conducted by commonly used outdated systems. Corroboration of this reality comes from French government health agency testing that found that 90 percent of tested phones failed when tested in “body worn” positions. In other words, when cell phones are tested in the ways people commonly use cellphones, resting against the body such as in a pocket or bra, the amount of radiation penetrating into the body exceeds maximum limits put in place by governments.

The real-world implications of this are quite simple: If you walk around with a cellphone in your pocket, tuck it into your bra, rest it on your lap, keep it in your back pocket as you work, or hold it up to your eyes to watch virtual reality, your body could be absorbing far more radiation than the antiquated 20-year-old regulatory limits.

So, is it “just bad luck” that a young man who has been using his phone for hours every day since age 8 is diagnosed with a deadly brain cancer at age 23? Or that a 21-year-old young woman suddenly develops multiple breast cancers right under the antennas of the phone she had stored in her bra? Or that a 24-year-old man develops rectal cancer close to his blue-jeans back pocket now stamped with the faded outline of his phone?

Growing numbers of pediatricians and educational technologists are warning that prolonged use of computer screens can affect children’s eyesight and physical and mental health and limit their abilities to play with others, problem solve, and interact socially. It would be nice to learn why one of the most successful tech businessmen in the world, Bill Gates, allowed none of his children to use a cellphone until age 14. Steve Jobs refused to allow his young children to play with the iPad, because “We think it’s too dangerous for them.”

The absence of public knowledge about evidence of harm is not proof of safety, rather it is proof of the effectiveness of the public relations campaigns of the wireless industry to create an extraordinary demand for a technology that has never been evaluated for its impact on public health or the environment. When it comes to the health of our children and the environment, we can place our trust in the Lord, but all others really have to provide data. A new analysis published in the American Journal of Epidemiology provides more hard evidence linking cell phone use to brain cancer after only 558 hours of cellphone use. How long will it take a teenager to log 558 hours of cell phone use?

Taking its duty to protect public health seriously, the City of Berkeley makes sure its residents are aware that manufacturers advise all of us to keep phones off the body to avoid exceeding radiation test limits. The cellphone industry objected in court, arguing that requiring the posting of information on FCC test distances violates their right to free speech. So far, the courts have allowed the Berkeley Right to Know to trump the Right to Profit. Let this important revolution in public health finally begin.

Devra Lee Davis is an award-winning scientist and writer, Visiting Professor of Medicine at The Hebrew University, and President of Environmental Health Trust. www.ehtrust.org
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Hill, Devra Davis, 06 Jun 2017

Comparison of Contamination: ! A strong article worthy of reading (2010)
USA Created: 29 May 2017
Ever worry that that gadget you spend hours holding next to your head might be damaging your brain? Well, the evidence is starting to pour in, and it's not pretty. So why isn't anyone in America doing anything about it?

Earlier this winter, I met an investment banker who was diagnosed with a brain tumor five years ago. He's a managing director at a top Wall Street firm, and I was put in touch with him through a colleague who knew I was writing a story about the potential dangers of cell-phone radiation. He agreed to talk with me only if his name wasn't used, so I'll call him Jim. He explained that the tumor was located just behind his right ear and was not immediately fatal—the five-year survival rate is about 70 percent. He was 35 years old at the time of his diagnosis and immediately suspected it was the result of his intense cell-phone usage. "Not for nothing," he said, "but in investment banking we've been using cell phones since 1992, back when they were the Gordon-Gekko-on-the-beach kind of phone." When Jim asked his neurosurgeon, who was on the staff of a major medical center in Manhattan, about the possibility of a cell-phone-induced tumor, the doctor responded that in fact he was seeing more and more of such cases—young, relatively healthy businessmen who had long used their phones obsessively. He said he believed the industry had discredited studies showing there is a risk from cell phones. "I got a sense that he was pissed off," Jim told me. A handful of Jim's colleagues had already died from brain cancer; the more reports he encountered of young finance guys developing tumors, the more certain he felt that it wasn't a coincidence. "I knew four or five people just at my firm who got tumors," Jim says. "Each time, people ask the question. I hear it in the hallways."

It's hard to talk about the dangers of cell-phone radiation without sounding like a conspiracy theorist. This is especially true in the United States, where non-industry-funded studies are rare, where legislation protecting the wireless industry from legal challenges has long been in place, and where our lives have been so thoroughly integrated with wireless technology that to suggest it might be a problem—maybe, eventually, a very big public-health problem—is like saying our shoes might be killing us.
Except our shoes don't send microwaves directly into our brains. And cell phones do—a fact that has increasingly alarmed the rest of the world. Consider, for instance, the following headlines that have appeared in highly reputable international newspapers and journals over the past few years. From summer 2006, in the Hamburg Morgenpost: are we telephoning ourselves to death? That fall, in the Danish journal Dagens Medicin: mobile phones affect the brain's metabolism. December 2007, from Agence France-Presse: israeli study says regular mobile use increases tumour risk. January 2008, in London's Independent: mobile phone radiation wrecks your sleep. September 2008, in Australia's The Age: scientists warn of mobile phone cancer risk.
Though the scientific debate is heated and far from resolved, there are multiple reports, mostly out of Europe's premier research institutions, of cell-phone and PDA use being linked to "brain aging," brain damage, early-onset Alzheimer's, senility, DNA damage, and even sperm die-offs (many men, after all, keep their cell phones in their pants pockets or attached at the hip).

In September 2007, the European Union's environmental watchdog, the European Environment Agency, warned that cell-phone technology "could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol."
Perhaps most worrisome, though, are the preliminary results of the multinational Interphone study sponsored by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in Lyon, France. (Scientists from thirteen countries took part in the study, the United States conspicuously not among them.) Interphone researchers reported in 2008 that after a decade of cell-phone use, the chance of getting a brain tumor—specifically on the side of the head where you use the phone—goes up as much as 40 percent for adults. Interphone researchers in Israel have found that cell phones can cause tumors of the parotid gland (the salivary gland in the cheek), and an independent study in Sweden last year concluded that people who started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were five times as likely to develop a brain tumor. Another Interphone study reported a nearly 300 percent increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the acoustic nerve.

As more results of the Interphone study trickled out, I called Louis Slesin, who has a doctorate in environmental policy from MIT and in 1980 founded an investigative newsletter called Microwave News. "No one in this country cared!" Slesin said of the findings. "It wasn't news!" He suggested that much of the comfort of our modern lives depends on not caring, on refusing to recognize the dangers of microwave radiation. "We love our cell phones. The paradigm that there's no danger here is part of a worldview that had to be put into place," he said. "Americans are not asking the questions, maybe because they don't want the answers. So what will it take?"
To understand how radiation from cell phones and wireless transmitters affects the human brain, and to get some sense of why the concerns raised in so many studies outside the U.S. are not being seriously raised here, it's necessary to go back fifty years, long before the advent of the cell phone, to the research of a young neuroscientist named Allan Frey.

*SNIP* read the entire article via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: GQ, Christopher Ketcham, 25 Jan 2010

New records show how state reworked secret cell phone warnings
USA Created: 26 May 2017
SACRAMENTO — Newly released public records show that California public health officials worked for five years on a set of guidelines to warn the public about the potential dangers of cell phones, revising their work 27 times with updated research before abandoning the efforts without ever making their concerns public until ordered by a judge.

The 27 versions of the guidelines, obtained by The Chronicle, show that California health officials deleted a section that warned state employees with work-issued cell phones about the potential increased risk for brain cancer from use of the devices over time. The final version of the guidelines was a broad warning to the public about exposure to electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones. It included a list of best practices to minimize exposure.

Joel Moskowitz, a public health researcher at UC Berkeley who sued the state to force the release of the records, said state officials should never have withheld the warnings from the public. Lawyers for the state had argued in court that release of the warnings could cause unnecessary panic.

“It would have to be purely political to deny distributing this,” Moskowitz said. “Science supports this.”

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang ordered the state in March to turn over the final version of the guidelines from 2014. Last week, as part of the lawsuit, the judge forced California health officials to turn over all the previous versions of the guidelines it had kept secret.

It’s unclear what debate went on inside the California Public Health Department over the guidelines — and whether there was any influence from outside the department.

The Chronicle submitted a public records request to the health department in March, asking for emails or documents related to why the cell phone guidelines were never approved to be made public — and to see whether there was any outside influence. The department refused to release records, saying those that existed were protected by attorney-client privilege.

The little information that is known about the state’s efforts to create and then abandon cell phone guidelines can be gleaned from Moskowitz’s lawsuit and the newly released documents.

The first version of the guidelines, from 2009, said recent studies of cell phone and cordless phone use “suggest that after 10 years of heavy use there is an increased risk of malignant brain cancer and a kind of benign tumor in the inner ear, particularly on the side of the head where these phones are usually placed.” The state department reviewing the material, the Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control, wrote that following its own “unpublished meta-analysis,” it agreed with the conclusions of the studies. Similar language about long-term effects was included in the later versions, but not the part about a consensus of study findings by the division.

The first version also included this language, which was later removed: “Although most cell phone and cordless phone heavy users would not get brain cancer, the number of brain cancer patients coming to hospitals would increase and would represent a significant cost to society in suffering, medical costs and economic costs that one would want to avoid.”

Additionally, the first version noted that the lifetime risk of getting brain cancer is low, but that longtime heavy use of cell phones and cordless phones is enough to be of “regulatory concern.” That “regulatory concern” was removed in the later versions.

The early document also included the section of state employees, which was deleted. It detailed how state government and its employees could lower the risk of exposure, such as reducing the time workers were required to be on their cell phones, avoiding purchasing cordless phones for office use and ensuring that employees have headsets.

The first version also warned: “Do not allow children to use a cell phone, except for emergencies.” The final version said, “Parents may want to limit their child’s cell phone use to texting, important calls and emergencies.”

“I want to know why this was suppressed,” Moskowitz said, referring to information he feels parents should be aware of.

The California Department of Public Health declined an interview request, releasing only written statements.

“The draft cell phone guidelines attempted to characterize the complex science around radiofrequency electromagnetic field (EMF) and provide options for people who want to reduce their exposure,” the statement read.

The health department told The Chronicle in March that it abandoned the guidelines because the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued national guidance on the same subject in 2014. But, even those national guidelines were the subject of controversy.

CDC’s updated guidelines in 2014 read “we recommend caution in cell phone use,” but that language was deleted weeks later.

A New York Times investigation last year, examining more than 500 pages of internal CDC records, found the agency’s new language had been worked on for three years, but soon after it was published, officials grew concerned that it was being mistaken as a policy change. The language was then changed again in 2014 to say: “Some organizations recommend caution in cell phone use. More research is needed before we know if using cell phones causes health effects.”

Moskowitz said he hopes the state will decide to adopt and post the guidelines its own department created.

“It seems to me better late than never to notify the public,” Moskowitz said. “The public has a right to this information paid for with their tax dollars.”

The statement from the California Department of Public Health said there are no plans to post the guidelines on its website.

Melody Gutierrez is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: mgutierrez@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @MelodyGutierrez

Guidelines on safe mobile usage

Increase the distance between you and your cell phone by:

Using the speaker phone.

Sending text messages.

Use a headset, and carry your phone away from your body. EMFs from wireless (Bluetooth) and wired headsets are usually weaker than those from a cell phone.

Keep your phone away from your body. A cell phone that is on can emit EMFs even when it is not being used.

Do not sleep with your cell phone near you or carry it in a pocket or directly on your body unless the phone is turned off.

Keep cell phone calls short, even when using a wireless or wired headset.

Take off your headset when you’re not on a call. Wireless and wired headsets emit EMFs even when you are not using your phone.

Do not rely on devices that claim to shield or neutralize EMFs from cell phones. These devices have not been shown to reduce exposures.

Source: California Department of Public Health
Click here to view the source article.
Source: San Fransisco Chronicle, Melody Gutierrez, 19 May 2017

Radiation from wireless technology elevates blood glucose and body temperature in 40-year-old type 1 diabetic male
USA Created: 26 May 2017
Abstract: A type 1 diabetic male reports multiple instances when his blood glucose was dramatically elevated by the presence of microwave radiation from wireless technology and plummeted when the radiation exposure ended.

In one instance, his body temperature elevated in addition to his blood glucose. Both remained elevated for nearly 48 h after exposure with the effect gradually decreasing.

Possible mechanisms for microwave radiation elevating blood glucose include effects on glucose transport proteins and ion channels, insulin conformational changes and oxidative stress.

Temperature elevation may be caused by microwave radiation-triggered Ca 2+ efflux, a mechanism similar to malignant hyperthermia.

The potential for radiation from wireless technology to cause serious biological effects has important implications and necessitates a reevaluation of its near-ubiquitous presence, especially in hospitals and medical facilities.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, Catherine E. Kleiber, 19 May 2017

Proof that Smart-Meter radiation pulses affect the heart
USA Created: 17 May 2017
Everyone's health is being affected by "smart" meters - The evidence in this video is a world first, and shifts the debate from whether anyone should have to pay a fee to refuse a "smart" meter to: When does the safety recall start?.

We now know that even if people are not showing outward symptoms, their bodies are being unnecessarily and involuntarily stressed by "smart" meters. There must be a complete safety recall of all "smart" meters at once.

Watch the video here:
https://youtu.be/p-aNRQNRtaI
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Youtube, Warren Woodward, 16 May 2017

State Senate Committee Presses Pause on 5G Wireless Bill
USA Created: 17 May 2017
SACRAMENTO, California – Opponents of a bill intended to smooth the way for the rollout of next-generation cell technology are cautiously optimistic - after a key committee put the measure on hold on Monday.

The state Senate finance committee put Senate Bill 649 in the suspense file - in the face of vocal opposition from groups concerned that the 5G technology emits harmful millimeter-wave frequencies when compared with the 3G and 4G now commonly in use.

Josh Hart, director of the group, StopSmartMeters.org, says the bill would limit local governments' ability to use zoning laws to block the proliferation of these towers near schools, hospitals and residential areas.

"This bill was basically written by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, the CTIA," he says. "This is their wish list. Local governments are the biggest impediment to them putting wireless wherever they want to."

Supporters of the bill say it will boost the economy by encouraging the spread of super-fast wireless connections in the Golden State.

The bill already sailed through the governance and finance committee but faced determined opposition from advocates on Monday, who organized hundreds of people to call into the hearing on a central conference line and express their concern.

A recent study by the National Toxicology Program found that male rats exposed to cell phone-like signals had a higher incidence of brain and heart tumors, compared with a control group.

Hart says other studies have linked 5G technology to skin and eye damage in humans.

"Approximately 5 percent to 6 percent of the population has been injured in some way by electromagnetic fields," he adds. "This is an acknowledged impairment in Sweden. Often these people's lives have been turned upside down. They've had to move into remote areas, lost jobs. This is a really serious and growing issue."

Hart says Santa Cruz and Marin counties and the League of California Cities have come out against the bill, which could be revived at any time before the end of the legislative session this summer.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Public News Service, Suzanne Potter, 16 May 2017

Wireless-Only Households More Likely To Smoke, Drink Heavily, says Center for Disease Control
USA Created: 11 May 2017
PHILADELPHIA (CBS)–More than half of Americans now live in a home void of a landline phone - That’s according to a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that also uncovered several interesting health attributes that the landline-less seem to share.

Why would the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study phone use? It turns out, that their need for data collection led researchers to the reality that by only calling people with landline phones they were missing out on crucial demographics, a majority of the population, as they found, for the first time in history.

According to the survey titled ‘Wireless Substitution’ the CDC found that in the final six months of 2016, over 50% of American homes were not equipped with a landline.

Also with this survey, came some interesting health data. For example, researchers found that a person who only used a cell phone in their home was more likely to be a current smoker and 11% more likely to drink heavily.

Alternatively, they also found that, regardless of age, the landline-less reported more frequent exercise and better overall health.

Emergency health needs do play a part in why some landline users told Eyewitness New that they do not plan to part with their’s any time soon.

According to the Federal Communications Commission:

“The mobility of wireless telephone service makes determining a wireless 911 caller’s location more complicated than determining a traditional wireline 911 caller’s location, where numbers are associated with a fixed address.”
Click here to view the source article.
Source: CBS Philly, Alexandria Hoff, 04 May 2017

 Page 1 of 165   Next›  Last» 
 News item: