«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 635   Next›  Last» 

Internationally-acclaimed biochemist calls for action against Smart Meters, WiFi in schools & baby monitors
USA Created: 22 Sep 2014
Professor Martin Pall is the Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University - He has been studying environmental medicine and chronic illnesses for nearly 15 years and has received eight international honours for his work.

In this short presentation, Prof. Pall lays to rest the misconception that non-ionising radiation needs to cause heating to cause biological damage – by explaining that pathological mechanisms for wireless harm begin with Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel (VGCC) activation at non-thermal levels. He concludes by calling for Wi-Fi in schools, Smart Meters and wireless baby monitors to be “abolished”.

As Prof. Pall discusses, electromagnetic radiation from wireless technologies is especially harmful when pulsed – as is the case with Smart Meters which can emit up to 190,000 pulses of RF-radiation per day from each meter. The UK’s heavily out-dated public RF exposure thresholds, however, make no allowance for the effects of these extremely bio-active emissions, meaning that if you use wireless devices, your health is at risk from the effects which Prof. Pall describes.

*SNIP* ..watch the video presentations via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Stop Smart Meters UK, 27 May 2014

A Refuge! Offer to Australian EMR/EHS sufferers!
Australia Created: 22 Sep 2014
I am in a pretty desperate situation at the moment. I am 49 years old and have severe EHS cannot live in the city as it is unbearable. I am a prisoner in my own home and cannot go outside for any longer than a half hour when in the city and even then I have to run like a rat in a maze to avoid the phone tower locations. Prior to this condition arising, I had 40 years straight of chronic insomnia. Immediately after getting rid of the insomnia, this EHS developed. My condition has driven me to contemplating suicide almost daily as there is no escape from these phone towers.

I was forced to move to the country and was lucky enough that my father had a cottage in the hills that has none, or extremely limited phone coverage. I can live here without any problems from phone towers. The land that the cottage is on is crown land and adjoins our titled land and has been used by our family for over 150 years as one block. It is located outside of Wangaratta Victoria in the King Valley. There are wineries and all sorts of other things in the area on the other side of the mountain. There are towns within 30 min drive.

We entered an agreement to buy the crown land that adjoins our land and put a deposit on the land. Then it got complicated and the DEPI decided that they did not want to go through with the sale and are talking about demolishing the cottage where I live and taking the land. They are in breach of contract but we are having a great deal of problems getting justice. This is possibly one of the few places in the world where I can live and still run my business. So if I am evicted I am going to be devastated as my whole life has been completely destroyed, yet again by big corporations that work in collusion with government for their own self interests.

I do not consent to being irradiated every day all day for someone else’s profit.

So here is what I want to do. I want to bring lots of people with the same condition as me to this property and declare it as a sanctuary for EHS sufferers. I want people who are prepared to defend our rights and stand up to the government and demand that we be given this one area where we can be left alone and not be irradiated. I want this area declared as a sanctuary where telcos cannot infringe.

We have vast tracts of land that is completely owned by us and cannot be taken away. It is beautiful countryside with plenty of trees and much scope for secluded living. My father is willing to let people come here and build their own cottages, grow their own food and put in a little bit of farm work to earn their keep. There is some work in the surrounding districts with various farms like vineyards. There may be some work for people who have website or IT experience, but I cannot promise this as my business has been devastated by my condition.

If there are some people with legal experience, that would be a real bonus as we are going to need them to oppose any phone towers that they may be planning to build near here in the future. We can organise temporary accommodation in sheds etc while they build their huts. Yes the immediate accommodation is rough, but we have no other choice. There will be some normal bedrooms for those that get here first and appear to be easy to live with. We do not really want to have political extremists of either persuasion here and would prefer people who are happy, easy to get along with, and are positive even though they are in a bad situation. We will understand if you are angry about your situation, but we want to make the best of what we have and enjoy the company of good people.

This will not be a farm full of hippies that sit around all day banging drums and smoking weed. I have nothing against weed smokers, and what they do in their own hut is their business. We intend to have a gym, (hopefully MMA, boxing, BJJ, yoga, gymnastics), communal kitchen, internet hub and other features as the need arises. These things need to be built so we need to have people that want to put in a couple of hours of work per day in whatever capacity you are able. We are not made of money so things will get built as the finances allow.

If you have a business that runs on the internet and would like to move it here, we can work that out, I did. If you have a healing business, meditation, yoga, massage or some other interest that you would like to set up here, you would be more than welcome. We are not looking to make a profit, however if there are people that have an entrepreneurial spirit and can come up with a good concept we are all ears.

We need people here now, today, this week. Even if you can come only for a couple of days or a week to have a look around and we can get to know you, let us know. The showdown with the government is going to happen in two weeks and we need people who are prepared to stand up for all of our freedoms and our right to be free from radiation. You can bring caravans, tents, vans whatever, and if the government doesn’t like it, too bad, they started this.

If interested, send me an email with your details about yourself (interests, experience, abilities, ambitions, likes dislikes etc) and contact info to:
radiationrefuge@abuconga.com

You are welcome to just drop in and say hello, we need all the support we can get.
Cheers
Bruce

Please read also Kim Goldbergs, Refugium, account, which also has pictures of the landscape where he proposes the Refugium.
http://www.yurtsdirect.com/gallery_yurts_in_UK_and_europe_1.html
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Agnes Ingvarsdottir

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

«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 635   Next›  Last»