«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 693   Next›  Last» 

Science says wi-fi allergies are fake—but people are still sick
United Kingdom Created: 4 Jul 2016
Nearly a year to the day 15-year-old Jenny Fry took her own life, her mother, Debra, brought tulips and a sunflower to lay at her grave.

“In the early days, I came every day,” Fry, a dental nurse, says over the phone from her home in Oxfordshire, England, before she left with her husband, Charles, for the cemetery. “Then it went to every other day. Generally, now it’s every three days; five days at the most.”

She sighs. She sounds drained, unsurprising for a mother still coming to terms with the loss of her middle child. But her exhaustion is not just because of grief. In the year since her family lost their daughter, Fry has devoted her life to battling what she says was the direct cause of Jenny’s death: the onward march of technology. In doing so, she’s thrust herself into a deeply polarized scientific debate over how best to define an illness on the frontier of science today.

For over two and a half years, Jenny had been feeling ill, complaining of headaches and exhaustion. She couldn’t concentrate at school and couldn’t sleep at night. Her parents tried a host of solutions to alleviate the problem: They bought a new mattress and thicker curtains to help her sleep; they took her to an orthodontist to see if the headaches were caused by an overbite. “I did all the things you would do in my professional capacity,” Debra says, “going through things like a detective to see what caused this or that, and ruling out options.”

In May 2015, Jenny came down the stairs pinching her nose. She found her mother and told her that her nose had started bleeding while she was doing her homework. “She said, ‘I can’t stop it,’” recalls Debra. “‘I haven’t picked my nose; I haven’t banged it,’ she told me. ‘I haven’t had this before, Mum.’” Debra stanched her daughter’s bleeding, then took to Google in search of an answer.

She became convinced Jenny suffered from a little-known and highly disputed medical condition called electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). The disease is purported to be a weakness to the electromagnetic waves produced by Wi-Fi routers and cellphone towers. People who believe this say modern society is bombarding us with damaging waves, causing myriad symptoms, from headaches and nausea to nosebleeds and sleep problems.

Debra tore out the Wi-Fi in her family home, replacing it with wired Ethernet connections, and pleaded with Jenny’s school to do the same. But it didn’t: The headmaster did his own research and came to a different conclusion, pointing to studies that showed there was no link between Wi-Fi signals and illness. Jenny continued to suffer, returning home from school with splitting headaches that would dissipate at home. On a June day in 2015, she killed herself.

At an inquest into her daughter’s death, Debra told the coroner, “I believe that wi-fi killed my daughter.”

Scientific Dismissals

For the better part of a decade, two diametrically opposed sides—one that claims there is no scientific link between exposure to Wi-Fi signals and illness and another that says people suffer daily because of it—have battled on websites, in newspapers and in scientific journals. James Rubin of the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, doesn’t dispute that EHS sufferers are ill. “They have physical symptoms; the quality of life they have can be appalling sometimes; they’re in desperate need of help,” he says. But his surveys of the science led him to believe exposure to electromagnetic rays is not to blame.

Others, including some professionals, disagree. “Ten years ago, I thought this was hokum,” says Dr. David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany in New York. “People have symptoms they want to blame on something, so they come to electromagnetic fields as the source.” But that changed with the sheer number of people who came calling at his door, claiming their lives had been irreparably changed by electromagnetic fields. He’s now switched sides: He has a sympathetic ear and is banging the drum for those affected. EHS is real, Carpenter says, and it’s a problem. “The question in my mind is: How does one—in a rigorous scientific fashion—go about getting information that would be convincing to a skeptical scientific community?”

There have been many attempts. A battery of tests, carried out by researchers in fields ranging from psychology to oncology, have been conducted in the past 30 years to prove EHS is caused by direct exposure to electromagnetic radiation. Typically, the tests involve exposing subjects to electromagnetic signals for a short period and measuring their reaction; then doing the same with a placebo. The results are mixed, but mostly the tests find that subjects can’t distinguish between real and fake signals.

(Proponents of EHS take issue with these efforts: Carpenter says such studies “are done in half-assed fashion.” Testing 15-minute exposures to electromagnetic fields, he argues, is a poor way to disprove what are in his belief the debilitating effects of prolonged daily exposure to wi-fi.)

In 2004, Dr. Lena Hillert of the Institute of Environmental Medicine at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden presented a seminal World Health Organization report arguing there was no proof EHS existed in the form its sufferers claim. Twelve years on, she says, there’s still no scientific evidence for it. “You can never prove that something does not exist,” says Hillert, “but if you fail time after time to prove that something does exist, you do kind of say, ‘Enough is enough. If we don’t have any new ideas or approaches, we should accept that we can’t find support for this hypothesis.’” Hillert says that the best current research supports the hypothesis that EHS is basically due to the “nocebo effect”—where the expectation that something will make you ill becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most of the scientific community agrees.

That’s why there are no good data on how many people could be affected by EHS. Though provocation studies continue, EHS censuses stopped in the mid-2000s, before wi-fi became ubiquitous. One estimate presented at a European Economic and Social Committee public hearing in 2014 (not peer-reviewed) suggests that around 5 percent of all Europeans are susceptible. More rigorous (but significantly older) surveys cite similar figures: 3.2 percent of Californians, 9 percent of Germans and 5 percent of the Swiss population complained of symptoms believed to be caused by EHS.

Those numbers might be why the illness is recognized by government officials in some countries. Last year, a judge in Toulouse, France, awarded a woman a disability grant of about $900 a month after she claimed she was allergic to Wi-Fi and therefore could not work. In 2013, an Australian scientist won a workers’ compensation appeal for EHS. The Swedish government classifies EHS as a functional impairment, granting compensation for its effects while not making any official judgment on the cause of EHS symptoms. In Austria, there are formal guidelines on how to diagnose and treat illnesses caused by electromagnetic sensitivity.

Fleeing Modern Society

Nevertheless, for those who think controls on Wi-Fi routers are the only answer to the spread of EHS, the web of wireless internet being spun across the globe is worrying. It’s impossible to walk through the commercial district of any developed city in the world without your phone pinging up offers to connect to Wi-Fi routers. Wi-Fi is so widespread—it’s often free, in stores, restaurants, bars, buses and cafĂ©s—that it has nearly reached the status of a public utility. For most of the world’s population, that’s a boon: instant connectivity, often free at the point of access, to nearly all of civilization’s information (and pornography) on demand.

But people who believe Wi-Fi is a public health threat find this an intolerable, a creeping, permanently present menace. As the result of her tragedy, Debra Fry has made connections with a number of activist groups, including Electrosensitivity U.K., trying to slow the spread of Wi-Fi; some focus specifically on countering the rollout of Wi-Fi in schools. “This could be the biggest mistake we’ve ever, ever made,” she says.

Some of those stricken with EHS end up fleeing modern society. The day before I spoke to Carpenter, he had been visited at his office by an attorney who thought she suffered from a form of EHS. Dafna Tachover, who runs an advocacy group for those suffering from the aftermath of EHS, used to work and live in New York City but moved to the Catskill Mountains, 150 miles outside the city. It’s the only way to escape, she says, having tried different ways to shield herself from the radiation for several years, including sleeping in her car. “I understood if I wanted to get better,” she says, “my only strategy was to avoid it.”

She’s far from alone—as more EHS sufferers decide to leave the Wi-Fi world, communities are cropping up out in the country. There is an independently run “EHS refuge zone” in DrĂ´me, France, nestled deep inside a nature reserve, where electromagnetic radiation emitters are banned, keeping background levels down to 1 or 2 microwatts per square meter. Green Bank, West Virginia, has become an adopted home for some EHS sufferers because of its location in the National Radio Quiet Zone, where all kinds of radio signals are banned to prevent interference with the nearby National Radio Astronomy Observatory. An EHS sufferer in South Africa runs an EHS-friendly farm, with accommodations, in the Western Cape. A smattering of similar communities and communes dot the globe.

Carpenter says that EHS today is in the same position as illnesses like chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and Gulf War sickness were before being accepted by science. “For none of those diseases do you have a blood test that will allow you to diagnose definitively what is wrong. In the meanwhile, the people who have this syndrome are really abused by society,” he says. “Are we going to accommodate people that have this rather unusual syndrome, or is it just up to them to find a remote place they can survive without being ill all the time?”

Rubin, who does not think that EHS is real, agrees. “We’ve spent an awful lot of time and money testing whether electromagnetic fields cause symptoms. And what we haven’t done is work out how we can treat these patients,” he says.

EHS sufferers often say that if only everyone could see Wi-Fi, pulsing and throbbing across boulevards and down highways, zipping out of storefronts and around corners, they’d understand. Fry carries a meter that measures the strength of such signals. It’s small and inconspicuous, and people often mistake it for a cellphone. “In the average busy McDonald’s or CaffĂ© Nero,” she says, “if everybody is on their laptops and mobile devices, my meter goes off the scale.”
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Newsweek, Chris Stokel-Walker, 26 Jun 2016

Wi-Fi allergy known as EHS has forced me to close my computer repair shop – Kidderminster boss
United Kingdom Created: 4 Jul 2016
A KIDDERMINSTER man who fixes computers and phones for a living says he has been forced to close his repair business of 20 years as technology has made him ill.

Richard Kimberley, 36, is shutting csmicros on July 22 after claiming radiation signals from wireless technology has given him a rare condition known as electro-hypersensitivity (EHS).

He says he suffers from black outs, headaches and tiredness as a result of working with phones, computers and Wi-Fi signals on a regular basis since launching his business in 1996.

He said: "Due to an over-exposure to the radiation from wireless technology, my health has declined to the point where I cannot continue with the business that I have spent my life building.

"It is a complete life changer and an absolute blow that was totally unexpected.

"I’d wake up five or six times in a night, my joints were aching, I’d have headaches during the day and my memory was awful – I felt atrocious and I had no idea why.

"I’ve had to rely on staff for the past 18 months since becoming EHS. I have persevered, battling with electro-hypersensitivity for as long as I can."

Mr Kimberley says his symptoms began in 2013 when he moved into a dual shop and house premise on Stourport Road, yet found the problem improved by removing wireless technology at home.

Since October, he has lived in a van fitted with aluminium lining to block out radiation signals.

He added: "Becoming sensitive has turned my life upside down.

"Wireless technology is everywhere and the only way I can avoid it is to camp in the van every night in places I find that are safe.

"I have satellite broadband and a landline in the van, my computer is wired and people can email me or phone my landline if they want me.

"I still have technology, but now I use it safely. It’s an extremely solitary life."

Mr Kimberley now aims to make his living as a freelance web designer - working from his van - while raising awareness for EHS by writing a blog.

A 2005 report from the World Health Organisation concluded EHS symptoms "are certainly real" but ruled it "is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem".

EHS, which has caused division in the medical world, hit headlines last year when French courts awarded ÂŁ580-a-month disability payments to a woman who said she was allergic to Wi-Fi.

Later that year, a Cotswolds schoolgirl took her own life after complaining she suffered from EHS.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Evesham Journal, Tom Davis, 01 Jul 2016

New Zealand, Indian researchers to study health impacts of 5G networks
India Created: 30 Jun 2016
Researchers from New Zealand and India will jointly investigate the possibilities of adverse effects of electromagnetic radiation on human health caused by the next generation of telecommunication networks called 5G, a New Zealand researcher said in a statement on Wednesday.

Massey University will collaborate with India’s Birla Institute of Technology and Auckland University of Technology on the project ‘Analysing Harmful Electromagnetic Exposure due to Future Millimeter Wave Transmissions’ over 2016-2017.

“If the future wireless signals are found to be harmless to the human health, this project would build consumer confidence in the future telecommunication services. However, if this project shows that the 5G network leads to, or potentially may lead to adverse health impacts, the industry would be required to modify the underlying wireless technology to ensure the human well being,” principal investigator Faraz Hasan, School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Massey University, said in the statement.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Indian Express, IANS, Jun 30 2016

Wireless computers close to the body can expose the users as much as mobile phones
United Kingdom Created: 27 Jun 2016
Public Health England (PHE)/Health Protection Agency (HPA) has failed to inform that wireless computers can expose the users to electromagnetic fields as high as from mobile phones when close to the body.

PHE/HPA failed to mention that studies have reported adverse biological or health effects of Wi-Fi and similar wireless signals. Schools, organisations and individuals are thus unable to make informed decisions.

PHE/HPA has said that adults should be able to make their own choices about reducing their radiofrequency exposure should they so wish, but be able to do so from an informed position (PHE website, 1st December 2013). Their advice to schools on Wi-Fi and their failure to speak out about the use of mobile phones by children in schools has prevented children and parents from reducing their exposures in the school environment.

*SNIP* read the entire document (PDF) via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: WiFi in Schools, Dr. Sarah Starkey PhD,

'The precautionary principle' and EMF
USA Created: 23 Jun 2016
We humans are bioelectric beings - Independent sources confirm that the rapid proliferation of technology that emits artificial electromagnetic fields/radio frequency (EMF/RF) increasingly is conflicting with our natural EMF matrix and posing significant danger to health and well being of all life. Culprits include wireless computers, wireless utility “smart meters," microwave ovens, cell phones, mobile devices and associated infrastructure.

With Columbia University's Martin Blank, Ph.D., taking the lead, 220 scientists and engineers from around the globe last year petitioned the United Nations, its member states and the World Health Organization (WHO) to take action against an emerging public health crisis.

“The biological facts are being ignored and as a result, the (EMF/RF) safety limits are much too high," Professor Blank said. "The international exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields must be strengthened to reflect the reality of the impact on our bodies and in particular on our DNA.”

​Studies have found that pregnant women, potential parents, individuals with preexisting conditions, children and electromagnetically hypersensitive (EHS) individuals are among especially vulnerable human populations. ​

​​The Bioinitiative Report of 2012​, co-edited by​ David ​O. ​Carpenter, M.D.​, a professor of environmental health science at the ​University of Albany ​School of Public Health and director of the Institute of Health and the Environment at the university, ​ presents 1,800 ​s​tudies and is one of many non-industry sources citing the risks. "Good evidence … that many toxic exposures to the fetus and very young child have especially detrimental consequences,” the report summary states.

Conventional medical literature defines electromagnetic hypersensitivity as an idiopathic (unknown cause) environmental intolerance that's attributed to electromagnetic fields. WHO​, which says it can't prove cause and effect, does say that reported symptoms are real and that some sufferers report that they ​ “are so severely affected that they cease work and change their entire lifestyle.” ​​Dr. Carpenter​, however, says “… the evidence is strong enough to declare that electromagnetic hypersensitivity is real.” EHS symptoms include, insomnia, concentration difficulties, tinnitus, dizziness, headache, anxiety, nausea, heart palpitation and digestive disturbances. U.S. sufferers who ​have ​describe​d​ their condition as “a nightmare you don’t wake up from” ​serve as canaries in the coal mine​, an early warning.​ ​An estimate of 9.8 million ​sufferers in America will likely grow in step with the escalation of radiation pollution.

Concern about proliferation of wireless devices and infrastructure is a global worry. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO) has assigned EMF/RF a 2​B classification, based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain tumor, the same category as DDT and Hexachlorobenzene, now a globally banned fungicide. In contrast, non-industry scientists around the globe consider the “possibly carcinogenic” classification insufficient for public health protection. ​​The recently released results of ​cell phone frequencies on rodents by the U.S. National Toxicology Program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has added fuel to that fire.​​ "A pediatrician would be acting irresponsibly if he or she knew and understood the implications of the human and animal cancer data on cell phone radiation and did not offer precautionary advice to the parents of his or her patients," said Ronald L. Melnick, Ph.D., who led the design of the Toxicology study.​

The ​appeal from the 220 scientists and engineers organized by Columbia's Professor Blank is very clear: “We have created something that is harming us … The time to deal with … harmful biological health effects is long overdue.” Their warning urges precautionary measures to limit EMF exposures.

Here in Worcester, National Grid’s January 2015 rollout of the “smart meter" pilot program, renamed Smart Energy Solutions, raised the already heightened concern of residents who object not only to health hazards, but to being guinea pigs for a flawed technology that in 2012, then Attorney General Martha Coakley ​criticized the proposed pilot as too large, too expensive​, potentially subject to cyber-security threats, and lacking consumer choice. The cornerstone of the security-vulnerable smart grid, wireless utility meters, has no place in an authentically “​green” agenda.

With self-congratulatory excitement last year, New York City announced the Big Apple is looking to convert old phone booths into Wi-Fi hot spots, giving new meaning to repurposing​. In contrast, France last year adopted legislation banning Wi-Fi in nursery schools while requiring wireless devices be turned off when not in use in schools serving older children.

The railroad track warning to “Stop, Look and Listen” echoes the protective call from those engaged in reasonable discourse about wireless utility meters and runaway technology. The urgent call is for policies that adopt The Precautionary Principle to act for protection when considerable evidence demonstrating harm has been established.

We’re at a crossroads. Those sounding the alarm are not rejecting technology or looking to take away your cell phone. The call is to consider, that supported by​ credible information there are responsible choices we can make together that will reduce risk and create an authentically sustainable grid, such as wired applications using DSL or fiberoptics.

​It's time to ​change the ​conversation away from the insatiable preoccupation with profit​, fed by the seduction of wireless devices, to judicious, fully-examined responsible action requiring a willingness to examine credible evidence. Adopting The Precautionary Principle is the sanest path we can embrace at this juncture. Otherwise, we remain passengers addictively hooked into wireless accommodation on a runaway train.

- Leslie Saffer of Worcester is an environmentalist, writer and musician, and is involved in the movement to promote public awareness of hazards from "smart meters" and other wireless devices. She has previously worked with the natural electromagnetic field as an energy medicine practitioner.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Worcester Telegram, Leslie Saffer, 21 Jun 2016

Setting the Record Straight on the NTP Cell Phone Cancer Study
USA Created: 22 Jun 2016
Ron Melnick Corrects ‘Misinformation’ in the NY Times - On May 31, the New York Times ran a piece in what it calls “The Upshot” on the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) cell phone animal study. The column is a regular feature in the Times that seeks to give readers context for stories in the news. This one was titled “Why It’s Not Time to Panic About Cell Phones and Cancer.” It was written by Aaron Carroll, a pediatrician at the University of Indiana School of Medicine. He expressed skepticism about the study results, calling the effort "imperfect."

Carroll's critique prompted a response from Ron Melnick, who led the study’s design team before retiring from the NTP. In an eight-point rebuttal, Melnick corrected what he called “numerous and misleading statements.”

Read the article here:
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Microwave News, Louis Slesin PhD, 10 Jun 2016

Electronics increasingly emitting RF noise - FCC to investigate
USA Created: 22 Jun 2016
FCC to Investigate Raised RF Noise Floor - If you turn on a radio receiver and tune to a spot between stations, you’ll find a huge amount more noise in areas of human habitation than you will if you do the same thing in the middle of the countryside. The RF noise emitted by a significant amount of cheaper modern electronics is blanketing the airwaves and is in danger of rendering some frequencies unusable.

If you have ever designed a piece of electronics to comply with regulations for sale you might now point out that the requirements for RF interference imposed by codes from the FCC, CE mark etc. are very stringent, and therefore this should not be a significant problem. The unfortunate truth is though that a huge amount of equipment is finding its way into the hands of consumers which may bear an FCC logo or a CE mark but which has plainly had its bill-of-materials cost cut to the point at which its compliance with those rules is only notional. Next to the computer on which this is being written for example is a digital TV box from a well-known online retailer which has all the appropriate marks, but blankets tens of megahertz of spectrum with RF when it is in operation. It’s not faulty but badly designed, and if you pause to imagine hundreds or thousands of such devices across your city you may begin to see the scale of the problem.

This situation has prompted the FCC Technological Advisory Council to investigate any changes to the radio noise floor to determine the scale of the problem. To this end they have posted a public notice (PDF) in which they have invited interested parties to respond with any evidence they may have.

We hope that quantifying the scale of the RF noise problem will result in some action to reduce its ill-effects. It is also to be hoped though that the response will not be an ever-tighter set of regulations but greater enforcement of those that already exist. It has become too easy to make, import, or sell equipment made with scant regard to RF emissions, and simply making the requirements tougher for those designers who make the effort to comply will not change anything.

This is the first time we’ve raised the problem of the ever-rising radio noise floor here at Hackaday. We have covered a possible solution though, if stray RF is really getting to you perhaps you’d like to move to the National Radio Quiet Zone.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Hack-a-day, Jenny List, 21 Jun 2016

Wearables at work are the new spy tool, UK workers say
United Kingdom Created: 22 Jun 2016
Despite 3m Britons buying a wearable device in 2015, we are not willing to use them at work, according to new research from PwC.

In a survey of 2,000 workers across the UK, only 46pc of people said they would accept a free piece of wearable technology if their employers had access to the data recorded.

This was despite the fact that two-thirds of respondents wanted their employer to take an active role in their health and well-being. The biggest barrier to adoption was trust, with 40pc saying they don’t trust their employer to use it for their benefit, and in fact believe it will actively be used against them.

“Employers haven’t been able to overcome the ‘big brother’ reaction from people to sharing their personal data,” said Anthony Bruce, people analytics leader at PwC. “If [they] want to overcome the trust gap they need to show that they are serious about data security and communicate openly with their staff about the benefits for them.”

This is borne out by the survey, which found that if workplace benefits such as flexible hours and remote working were promised, 55pc (rather than 46pc) were willing to accept a free wearable device from work.

The reluctance to have their activity tracked at work comes despite a doubling in the purchase of wearables in the UK, which rose by 118pc between 2014 and 2015.

The survey found that younger employees, particularly those below the age of 35, were far more amenable to trading personal data for benefits. Roughly 59pc said they would be happy to use a work-supplied smartwatch, compared to only 30pc of those aged 55 and over.

Compared to a similar PwC survey last June, the proportion of workers willing to make the tradeoff is almost exactly the same at 44pc, which shows employers have made no further inroads into gaining worker trust.

Workplace surveillance has become far easier and more commonplace because of technology. This ranges from heart-rate monitors for NHS workers to GPS trackers for long-distance lorry drivers.

Misgivings about employers spying was further bolstered by a January ruling from the European Court of Human Rights confirming that companies are allowed to spy on employee data, if it is deemed work-related.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Telegraph, Madhumita Murgia, 20 Jun 2016

Clarifying EMF and Cancer: Precautionary Occupational Strategies and Results of the NTP Cell Phone Studies
USA Created: 22 Jun 2016
Join The Collaborative on Health and the Environment Partnership call on Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 10:00am Pacific Time/1:00pm Eastern Time.

We are happy to announce our two featured speakers/topics:

Joseph D. Bowman, PhD, of the Engineering and Physical Hazards Branch at the National Institute for Occupational Safety (NIOSH) will present on Precautionary Strategies to Reduce Worker Exposures to Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Magnetic Fields, a Possible Carcinogen

Michael Wyde PhD, DABT, of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) will present on Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposure): Report of Partial Findings

Featured Speakers:

Dr. Joseph Bowman is a senior research chemist with NIOSH and is currently assessing occupational EMF exposures for the seven-country INTEROCC study of brain cancer. He is also developing NIOSH publications on strategies for managing workplace exposures to lower frequency EMF. Three of his 60 publications have received honorable mentions for NIOSH and CDC awards. Starting with a 1986 epidemiologic study of childhood leukemia risks from electric and magnetic fields in Los Angeles, he has focused on assessing exposure to EMF from power lines, cell phones, and other sources in workplaces and the environment. He received a PhD in physical chemistry from the University of Wisconsin in 1971 and was a Certified Industrial Hygienist from 1982 – 2011.

Dr. Michael Wyde is a toxicologist at the NTP and is overseeing the NTP cell phone studies. He also manages and participates in multidisciplinary teams of NIEHS/NTP scientists to develop research programs to address a broad array of toxicological study needs for chemicals selected for study by the National Toxicology Program. Wyde serves as the project leader for several chemicals including compounds that are used in consumer products, as food additives, as chemical intermediates, and environmental contaminants. He has a particular interest in chemical mixtures and herbal products, as well the application of dose-response modeling to NTP data for use in risk assessment, such as the determination of Benchmark Doses for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic responses. Wyde received a Ph.D. in toxicology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

This call is hosted by the CHE-EMF Work Group and moderated by Antoinette (Toni) Stein, PhD. Opening remarks will be made by Michael Lerner, Commonweal’s President. This call will last 60 minutes and will not be recorded by CHE. Questions will be taken through our Q&A comments page.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: CHE, Antoinette (Toni) Stein, 22 Jun 2016

Selfies can age the skin and cause wrinkles, warn dermatologists
United Kingdom Created: 19 Jun 2016
For people who believe that selfies are the ultimate display of vanity it may seem like poetic justice.

Dermatologists now believe that regularly exposing the face to the light and electromagnetic radiation from smartphones can damage the skin, speeding up ageing and promoting wrinkles.

Doctors even claim they can tell which hand a person holds their phone in just by looking at which side of the face is most damaged

Related news:
Jul 2015, Ukraine: 93 of 100 studies confirm Oxidative Stress from RF-radiation: review

Speaking ahead of the FACE, Facial Aesthetic Conference and Exhibition, in London Dr Simon Zoakei, Medical Director of the Linia Skin Clinic in Harley Street, said: “Those who take a lot of selfies and bloggers should worry.

“Even the blue light we get from our screens can damage our skin.

“I think there is a gap in the market for products which protect because I know there are people who take lots of selfies, and bloggers who come to me and I have seen that there is damage there and there ageing taking place. It's a different wavelength of radiation so sunscreen will not block it.”

Renowned dermatolgists Dr Zein Obagi, who founded the Obagi Skin health Institute in Beverley Hills, added: “ Your cell phone will damage your skin.

“It’s not documented, but in my clinical observation, I can tell whether someone uses their right hand or left hand to hold their phone. You start to see dull dirty looking texture that you cannot identify on one side of the face.

“I think we need to create a defence mechanism, light has some sort of magnetic think that is happening to the skin.

“This magnetic field is altering the minerals in the skin. A sunscreen will not protect you. But if you saturate your skin with anti-oxidants it can help prevent DNA damage from electronic devices.”

Some experts think that electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones ages skin by damaging the DNA. It can cause breaks in the DNA strand which can prevent skin repairing itself and place oxidative stress on cells.

The experts also argued that most over-the-counter moisturisers and oils do not work and may make skin worse, and that ‘a good scrub’ is the best way to keep skin healthy.

Dr Obagi added: “You cannot hydrate the skin from the outside. We have to stimulate the skin to bring back hydration from within.

“When you put your hand in the water for half an hour you see it white and crinkly you don't see any more hydration. There is a reason that women have more problems with sensitive skin than men. It’s because women use products.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor Daily Telegraph, 17 Jun 2016

«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 693   Next›  Last»