«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 542   Next›  Last» 

iPhone bursts into flames on Airplane
United Kingdom Created: 22 Aug 2014
Passengers were evacuated from a flight ready for takeoff after an iPhone burst into flames in Tel Aviv.

Passengers were forced to leave soon after boarding the plane which was departing from Israel when smoke from a girl's handbag filled the cabin.

The fire was found to have been caused by iPhone 5, reported AndroidPortal, forcing the passengers to disembark before the flight left for Prague, Czech Republic.

The father of the phone's owner, Yarden Leviovej, told Nova TV (as translated by iClarified): 'My daughter opened her purse, from which we saw the flames and the heat radiating from it.'

After the source of the flames and smoke was established, and the cabin cleared, the flight was reboarded. However Yarden, who was travelling with her family, had to leave without her burned out smartphone.

In July, the Civil Aviation Authority made a series of videos about the dangers of and risks associated with the transportation of lithium batteries, the power source of most personal electronic devices that would be used by travellers.

The videos, in conjunction with the US's Federal Aviation Administration, are aimed at airline and airport staff, cargo handlers, check-in staff and cabin crew, and explain the increased fire risk that comes with lithium batteries on passenger and cargo planes.

The CAA explains that 'although lithium batteries are very safe, their high energy levels mean they can pose a fire risk if damaged.'

'As a result they must be treated with care and stowed appropriately during flight.'

The use of items such as smartphones and tablets is only set to increase as airlines increasingly begin to offer on-board WiFi as part of their on-board entertainment.

It is the International Civil Aviation Organisation which sets the worldwide guidelines for dangerous goods, with lithium batteries a common cause for concern in their publicly available literature.

Current rules allow passengers to carry mobile phones, laptops, tablets, cameras and equipment in their carry on and hold luggage, but new security restrictions demand they be charged and able to be powered up on request.

However, spare lithium batteries such as those used invideo cameras must be taken in carry on.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Daily Mail, Michael Gadd, 20 Aug 2014

The Anti-Precautionary Principle Lobby at Work… Again…
Finland Created: 21 Aug 2014
Year 2003: Louis Slesin, editor of the Microwave News, reported that in the spring of 2003, then the WHO’s EMF Project leaders, Mike Repacholi and Leeka Kheifets announced “that “there is “sufficient evidence” to apply the precautionary principle to both power-frequency and high-frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs)” (See link to MWN).

Soon after, the announcement concerning precautionary approach was removed from the WHO EMF Project’s site.

Someone was afraid of the Precautionary Principle and the precautionary approach.

Year 2014: As written by Joel Moskowitz in one of his e-mail messages and press releases:

“On June 9th of this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revised the three-year old “Frequently Asked Questions about Cell Phones and Your Health,” on its web site.”

*SNIP* read the entire article via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: BRHP blog, Prof. Dariusz Leszczynski, 21 Aug 2014

CDC Calls for Caution on Cell Phones, Then Gets Cold Feet
USA Created: 21 Aug 2014
Sometime soon after we [Microwave News] filed the story above, CDC decided it had overstepped —or, more likely, someone held its feet to the fire. Any reference to precaution was removed from its FAQ. The agency deleted any suggestion that it believes there may be health risks. The CDC now states:

“There is no scientific evidence that provides a definite answer to that question [can using a cell phone cause cancer?]. Some organizations recommend caution in cell phone use. More research is needed before we know if using cell phones causes health effects.”

For a printer-ready copy of the original, precautionary text, click here:

CDC’s full name is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This sudden reversal may help explain why “Prevention“ got left out of the CDC abbreviation.

Related news
Aug 2014, USA: Microwave News on CDC's new cautionary stance on cellphones
Aug 2014, USA: CDC Issues Precautionary Health Warnings about Cell Phone Radiation
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Microwave News, Louis Slesin, 20 Aug 2014

Precaution or Paranoia? Berkeley May Require Cancer Warning Stickers for Cell Phones
USA Created: 21 Aug 2014
Just as the world supply of mobile phones is reaching one unit for every human being on Earth, here comes Berkeley, with a warning:
These things could be hazardous to your health.
Under a proposed city ordinance, every new mobile phone sold in town would carry a sticker advising that the World Health Organization has deemed transmissions from cell phones a “possible” cause of brain cancer. Berkeley could become the first city in the United States to require such a warning, but the ordinance will likely face a formidable legal challenge.

When the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listed radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” three years ago, it staked out some middle ground in a complex and bitter controversy spanning three decades. On one side are some politically active epidemiologists, doctors and researchers, who are convinced that cell phone signals can cause cancer and other health problems. On the opposite side are the wireless industry and a sizeable portion of the scientific community, led by physicists, saying this is nonsense.

Evidence of risk is conflicting and thin, according to the IARC’s 30-member panel of experts, but they determined in May 2011 that the link to malignant brain tumors could not be ruled out. In fact, their decision was almost unanimous. As panel members explain, the listing as a Group 2B “possible” carcinogen recognizes that “there is some, albeit uncertain evidence of risk.” In the hierarchy of harm, it is placed one step short of “probable,” and two steps short of Group 1, the domain of “known human carcinogens” like tobacco, asbestos, and X-rays.

Stakes in this argument are extraordinarily high. Cell phones are radio transmitters that are not only ubiquitous, they are close at hand: We press them against our ears. We store them in our pants pockets. Women slip them into their bras. Teens sleep with them under their pillows. With the adult market nearly saturated, the big growth opportunity for mobile devices is children.

A key adviser to ordinance backers is Joel Moskowitz, a center director in the UC Berkeley School of Public Health and a veteran of the tobacco wars, who was at first skeptical that cell phones could be dangerous, but now believes it is highly likely. “None of us say we need to ban this technology,’’ he explains. “I have a cell phone on my desk. But we are arguing for safer use.”

The Berkeley City Council is scheduled to consider the ordinance at its Sept. 9 meeting. If it is enacted, it will inevitably draw the city into a tangle with CTIA–The Wireless Association, the Washington DC lobby and trade group for the industry, which in the United States is valued at $195 billion. When San Francisco tried a similar law in 2010, the CTIA sued in federal court and won. The court blocked the labeling requirement on First Amendment grounds, ruling that the ordinance would compel retailers to display information that was controversial, given that the health issues were being debated among scientist, while the equipment met Federal Communications Commission guidelines.

“In our so­ci­ety, the pre­cau­tion­ary prin­ciple does not res­on­ate well. We want to see a body count first.”

The ruling against San Francisco drew the attention of Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig. A constitutional law scholar and an expert on the influence of money on politics, he has offered to craft the Berkeley ordinance, and defend it in court, pro bono. “This ordinance is a legitimate use of Berkeley’s regulatory authority,” says Lessig. “I have long been troubled by the growing practice of industry using the First Amendment to stifle legitimate sovereign power. For local or small state governments, the threat of paying legal fees is often enough to get the government to cower.”

The CTIA did not respond for comment about the Berkeley ordinance, but its position on cell phones and health is clear in written testimony to the Federal Communications Commission, which is currently reassessing its 18-year old-radio frequency exposure limits: “The (FCC), federal health and safety agencies, and international standards-setting bodies agree that cell phone use is not associated with adverse health effects.” It is noteworthy that the Chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler—appointed by President Obama in November—is a former President and Chief Executive of CTIA. In 2003, he was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame.

The CTIA statement builds a case that the “scientific consensus” is firmly in their camp. In fact, the two-word term appears 28 times in their filing. They quote numerous federal agencies asserting a lack of evidence that cell phone radiation can cause harm. Among them is the FCC itself, the FDA, and most notably, the National Cancer Institute, which states on its web site that “there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer.”

Moskowitz dismisses the endorsements. “Industry and government agencies seem to be in denial, and have been in that frame of mind for decades,’’ he says.

Harder to dismiss are two simple charts. One plots the growth of cell phone subscriptions in the U.S. from 1985 to 2011. The second plots the incidence of brain and nervous system cancer since 1975. Cell phone use skyrockets, while the cancer rate remains flat. If cell phones caused brain tumors, the industry and its supporters argue, the line on the incidence chart should be rising as well.

However, it may be simply too early to tell, because brain cancers have a long latency period; and those concerned contend that to wait for conclusive proof from cancer cases is to wait too long.

UC San Francisco professor of medicine Stanton Glantz, one of the nation’s leading experts on tobacco control and the health hazards of second-hand smoke, says that the science on the potential harm from cell phone radiation is far from settled. “I think cell phones are about where cigarettes were in 1955,’’ he says. “There is more than enough evidence to be worried.”

The reason most cell phone health studies are done in Europe, according to Moskowitz, is because there is little funding for it in the United States. Europeans, he adds, put the onus on industry to prove a technology is safe, whereas “in our society, the precautionary principle does not resonate well. We want to see a body count first.”

Lacking such definitive proof, laymen and scientists alike are left with imperfect tools, and much of the debate involves the teasing out of trends from a large body of complex and contradictory findings.

More than 900 studies were evaluated by the IARC panel. In the end, much of their analysis came down to two European studies that had been, and continue to be, the focus of the debate. Both are large “case-control” studies where brain tumor patients are interviewed about their usage of cell phones, and their responses are compared to those of a similar people, drawn from the general public, whose health status as well as phone habits are not known at the start. Case-control studies are difficult to design, are vulnerable to bias, and can be subject to widely different interpretations.

Of the two, Moskowitz favors the ongoing case studies of Swedish oncologist Lennart Hardell, who receives no industry funding, and notably includes cordless landline phones in his analyses. His work shows a clear relationship between wireless phone use and increased risk of malignant gliomas as well as of acoustic neuromas, a benign but potentially disabling brain tumor near the ear. In January, the Hardell group published data showing that the link to brain cancer has only strengthened since his studies were evaluated by IARC. The latest findings reaffirmed a 70 percent higher risk of malignant brain tumors among all who had used cordless and/or cell phones for a year or more, and further showed a doubling of risk among the subgroup reporting such use for 20 to 25 years, and a tripling of risk for those reporting more than 25 years.

Industry favors the results of the IARC’s own INTERPHONE project, a larger survey that combined studies from 13 European nations and was funded by government agencies and wireless industry groups. The results published in 2010 found no overall link between cell phone use and brain tumors—in fact it showed a slight decrease in tumor risk. However, the same study did flag, among a subgroup of those with the heaviest cell phone use, a 40 percent increase in risk, which rose to 80 percent with a statistical adjustment to correct for selection bias caused by the method used to recruit the control group. Although that subgroup analysis was deemed inconclusive by the authors, it weighed heavily in the deliberations of the WHO panel, which ultimately issued its cautionary findings.

“People with fringe ideas rarely re­cant, wheth­er their be­lief in­volves cold fu­sion, ali­en ab­duc­tions or ESP.”

The epidemiological hints that cell phones might cause cancer would gain credence if scientists could demonstrate a plausible mechanism by which radiofrequency radiation can damage genes. Unlike ionizing radiation from X-rays, cell phone radiation cannot directly break DNA. “Microwave radiation from cell phones cannot cause cancer by any mechanism, known or unknown,” writes physicist Bernard Leikind. “The brain receives only a tiny amount of energy from a cell phone compared to that generated by normal activity such as working out…Cell phones cannot damage living tissue or cause cancer.” Researchers nonetheless are exploring possible “non-thermal” effects that could indirectly cause damage, including production of chemically reactive free radicals, thought to play a role in aging.

According to the American Cancer Society, limited animal studies of cell phones and cancer risk have shown no evidence of tumor promotion. More definitive answers await results from the National Toxicology Program, a research arm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is conducting large-scale tests of whether cell phone radiation can cause health problems in rats and mice exposed over a two year period, and tracked from birth to old age.

The health concerns are not limited to cancer, and include reproductive toxicity. This year, a British survey of ten different studies of the effect of cell phones exposure on human sperm found an overall 9 percent reduction in viability and an 8 percent reduction in motility, or the ability to swim forward. A recent of study of rabbits exposed to simulated cell phone radiation showed damage to the epididymis, a tube traveled by sperm from the testes.

Those who are certain that cell phone radiation has no biological effects might want to consider an experiment conducted in 2012 at Yale Medical School. Dr. Hugh Taylor placed pregnant mice in cages, half with commercial cell phones transmitting (but silenced), and half with identical phones turned off. While the number of baby mice was the same, and they grew up to be perfectly fertile, the behaviors of the cell-phone-exposed progeny were strikingly different. Using a battery of well-established tests, Taylor found that the mice exposed in utero were hyperactive, had impaired memory, and less anxiety — traits that in humans are associated with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The results were dose dependent: The longer the exposure, the more striking the traits. Taylor, who is chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Yale-New Haven Hospital, set up the behavior experiment after a Danish study in 2008 found an association between prenatal and postnatal cell phone use and behavior problems in children.

In Taylor’s study, tests of brain tissue from young mice in the exposed group showed evidence of impaired transmission of the chemical glutamate among nerve cells in the prefrontal cortex, a region controlling cognition and emotion—suggesting changes in neuronal circuitry may have occurred.

He cautions that conclusions can’t be drawn from a single study, and humans are not mice; yet still he considers the findings provocative. “My bias,” says Taylor, “is that pregnancy, when development is occurring, is one of the most vulnerable times in human existence. If you make a mistake then, it can be permanently patterned.”

If the scientific consensus, as underscored by the CTIA, is that cell phones cannot cause health problems, are those who continue to raise a red flag about this no better than climate science deniers, who see global warming as a hoax? In so many words, science journalists have been warned to steer clear of this topic. Last month, the press watchdog Knight Science Journalism Tracker at MIT called out New York Times science writer Kenneth Chang for recently revisiting SUNY-Albany environmental scientist David O. Carpenter, “who hasn’t changed his mind” about health effects of electromagnetic fields in 25 years. “People with fringe ideas rarely recant, whether their belief involves cold fusion, alien abductions or ESP,” wrote KSJ Tracker’s Faye Flam.

Despite the weakness of epidemiological data, the lack of known mechanisms by which radiofrequency radiation could cause harm, and strident criticism from very smart people, the cell phone health issue just refuses to go away. Nor have reports of potential problems, such as a French study, published in May, showing a near tripling of malignant brain cancer risk among heavy users of cell phones. Berkeley’s proposed ordinance, sponsored by Councilmembers Maxwell Anderson and Kriss Worthington, will keep the topic in the headlines, perhaps plant a seed of doubt, and remind folks again that there are ways to keep mobile phone use at a distance. Cell-phone makers in their fine print do advise keeping these devices about a half-inch away from your body, although there is no mention of it in an industry-written parents’ guide to cell phone safety.

And meanwhile, let’s face it: We just love these little appliances. They are changing the way we live. If they are changing the way we die, we’ll find out, eventually.

By Sabin Russell
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Sylvie/Agnes Ingvarsdottir

Kate Bush asks fans to not use smartphones and iPads at her concerts
United Kingdom Created: 20 Aug 2014
Singer Kate Bush has requested fans do not take any photographs or record footage using mobile devices at her upcoming series of live concerts.

The 56-year-old star said on her website: "I very much want to have contact with you as an audience, not with iPhones, iPads or cameras."

The musician added it would mean "a great deal to me" but admitted that it was "a lot to ask".

Bush's 22-date run of performances in London begins on 26 August.

Tickets for the Before The Dawn gigs at the Hammersmith Apollo sold out within 15 minutes of going on sale in March.

The songwriter, whose hits include Wuthering Heights and Running Up That Hill, last toured in 1979.

She played her most recent concert at the same west London venue.

Bush added on her Fish People website that preparations for the new shows are "going very well indeed".

"We're all very excited about the upcoming shows and are working very hard in preparation," added Bush.

In making her request for fans to desist from filming, Bush said: "We have purposefully chosen an intimate theatre setting rather than a large venue or stadium.

"It would mean a great deal to me if you would please refrain from taking photos or filming during the shows."

"I know it's a lot to ask but it would allow us to all share in the experience together," she added.

While it is common practice for concert-goers to take photos and film footage of the action, other stars have also spoken out against it.

The Who's Roger Daltrey said he it found it "weird" that some music fans spend more time using their phones than watching the actual concert.

"Looking at life through a screen and not being in the moment totally - if you're doing that, you're 50% there, right?"

Performance artist Marina Abramovic banned mobiles at her recent Serpentine Gallery show so visitors would concentrate on her work.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: BBC News, 19 Aug 2014

Høj stråling øger cancerrisiko
Denmark Created: 20 Aug 2014
Med mange mobilmaster og wifi-spots overalt er Danmark et af verdens mest bestrålede lande.

Pressen skriver ofte om yderområder, som siges at være uden mobildækning. Faktum er imidlertid, at vi er et lille land med en supergrundig dækning, efter at teleindustri, regioner, KL og Folketinget indgik en aftale i 2012 om minimum 98 pct. dækning.

Selv teknologiførende lande som Storbritannien og USA har færre master pr. indbygger end os. I år har alene Telia planlagt 400 nye master, hvoraf 80 kommer til at stå i sommerhusområder.

Det er svært at finde steder, hvor ingen operatør dækker, hvilket er skadeligt for folkesundheden. Pressen burde skrive om den juridiske og sundhedsmæssige del af sagen, da der er kommet tunge beviser for, at selv ældre, mere gennemprøvede, mobilsignaler kan fremme cancer.

Disse fakta har fået Europarådet til at advare om elektromagnetisk strålings effekt på cancer, og WHO har opgraderet mobilstråling til kategori 2B (potentielt kræftfremkaldende, som f.eks. pesticider).

Andre studier peger på bivirkninger i form af f.eks. søvnforstyrrelser, ADHD og hovedpine. Samlet har vi et billede af en række diffuse symptomer, som de praktiserende læger for nuværende ikke er klædt på til at håndtere.

Et samlet overblik

Hvis man ønsker et samlet overblik over bivirkninger, eksisterer ”Bioinitiative Report”, en samling af 1.800 uafhængige strålingsstudier. Researchen dækker bl.a. universitetsforskning fra USA, Indien, Italien og Sverige og er ikke finansieret af industriinteresser.

Rapporten rummer eksempelvis data om potentielle gendefekter. 83 pct. af de seneste 61 studier om genpåvirkning (2007-2014) fortæller os, at vores celler ændres sundhedsmæssigt gennem oxidativ stress fra stråling. Hvad angår cancerrisiko ved brug af trådløs telefoni, er denne beskrevet og endelig fastslået af bl.a. Hardell-gruppen fra svenske Ørebro Hospitals kræftafdeling.

Gennem efterundersøgelse påvises en signifikant sammenhæng, der bekræfter tidligere fund fra 2007-2009 imellem langtidsbrug af trådløs teknologi og ondartede hjernesvulster samt hørenervebeskadigelser.

Herhjemme læner industri og myndigheder sig ofte op ad det danske kohortestudie delfinansieret af mobilindustrien. Studiet viste ingen fare på færde og blev stærkt kritiseret af et videnskabeligt EU-kommissionspanel for tendentiøs udvælgelse af forsøgsdata. Man havde ”glemt” flere svenske studier, som WHO har rost.


På baggrund af de seneste fakta fra uafhængig forskning vælger man i flere og flere lande at anvende forsigtighedsprincippet, hvorefter forurening med evt. uoprettelige skader ikke må udsættes pga. videnskabelig usikkerhed.

I europæiske nationer som Schweiz, Østrig og Rusland findes lovgivning, som opererer med strålingsgrænser, som er mere end 100 gange lavere end i Danmark. I franske skoler har man endda forbudt mobiltelefoner og wifi af hensyn til indlæring.

I mere eksotiske lande oplever man også mere ansvarlighed. De indiske sundhedsmyndigheder har nedsat grænseværdier for elektromagnetisk stråling med 90 pct., og i Brasilien forbød storbyen Belo Horizonte for et par år siden mobilmaster og mobilsendere inden for en radius af 500 m fra boliger.

Desværre er det som oftest muligt at opstille master eller sendere på dansk grund ved siden af bolig og erhverv – med mindre der er tale om fredede arealer eller bygningsteknik, som overskrider lokalplaner.


Dette udnytter industrien, da vi inden for det sidste halve år har set en eksplosion af mobilmaster og 4G-sendere på taget af bygninger. Masteloven fra 2005, som oprindeligt sigtede efter at minimere antal master, synes ganske enkelt ikke at fungere.

Hjernecancer og modermærkekræft er steget kraftigt herhjemme, efter mobilerne kom til, og med de stadigt kraftigere sendestyrker/signaler er udviklingen ikke til at knække uden forebyggelse, så det gælder om at sætte ind nu.

Helge Volkmann, læge
Carsten Vagn-Hansen, læge
John Jalving, speciallæge, lektor emeritus
Søren Lillesøe, PR-konsulent, forfatter, Morelhaven 34, Taastrup
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Jyllands Posten, Volkmann et al, 20 Aug 2014

Use of cell phones increases cancer risk
India Created: 18 Aug 2014
Dr Dariusz Leszczynski, Adjunct Professor, Division of Biochemistry and Biotechnology at the University of Helsinki and a member of a working group of 31 scientists from 14 countries constituted by World Health Organization (WHO) that classified cellphone radiation as possibly carcinogenic, in conversation with Maitri Porecha, reveals how leading cell phone operators and manufacturers are withdrawing funding for research, leading to closing down of laboratories studying effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields as emitted by cellphones and cell towers. Excerpts -

Q 1. How was cell phone radiation categorized as group 2B carcinogen, based on increasing risk of Glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and WHO?

The number of mobile phone subscriptions is estimated at 5 billion globally. With rising concerns over adverse health effects, in 2010, IARC invited thirty one experts to evaluate evidence involving carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation. The experts assembled at IARC headquarters in Lyon, France, in a meeting that lasted for twelve days in 2011. Experts shared the complex task of tackling the exposure data, the studies of cancer in humans, the studies of cancer in experimental animals, and the mechanistic and other relevant data. Groups worked separately and together sifting through many hundred research studies. After intense deliberations, we agreed upon the group 2B classification.

Q 2. On one hand, cell tower operators and industry stake holders say that cell phone radiation does not cause cancer, on the other hand the residents or activists posit a precautionary stand point by saying that it may cause cancer. Why there is no clarity?

The IARC-WHO classification of cell phone radiation is misrepresented by the industry. Classification of cell phone radiation as 'a possible carcinogen to humans’ means that there are enough studies indicating that it might cause cancer and that we urgently need more research to clarify this issue. The strongest evidence that it might be causing cancer comes from three epidemiological studies. In 2011, two sets of studies were available – EU's Interphone study and a series of studies from Lennart Hardell’s group in Sweden. Recently, CERENAT study from France published in 2014, similarly indicated that persons using cell phones for more than ten years and for half hour per day are at a higher risk for developing brain cancer. In fact now the evidence is sufficient to consider cell phone radiation as a probable carcinogen – Group 2A in IARC’s scale of carcinogenicity.

Q 3. Could you describe your work on cell phone radiation? Did you discover that it has ill effects on human health and if yes, in what way?

Our research has shown that human cells exposed in laboratory to cell phone radiation activated series of biochemical reactions in them known as 'stress response,' which means that the living cells recognize cell phone radiation as a potentially harmful agent. Stress responses are signals that intend to protect the living cell from any potential damage. In the 2008 study conducted by us, a small area of human forearm's skin in ten volunteers was exposed to GSM signal for one hour. After that, pieces of the radiation exposed skin and unexposed skin were collected and used for 'proteomic analysis.' In it, all proteins from the skin samples were extracted and amounts of different kinds of proteins in exposed and unexposed skin samples were compared. After the analysis of nearly 580 proteins, we identified eight proteins which were statistically significantly affected. We determined that the amounts of several proteins were changing after the exposure. After acquiring this result in the pilot ten-volunteer-study, we intended to conduct a larger study with 100 volunteers from 2009 onwards. This study did not start due to lack of funding and opposition from the telecom industry stakeholders.

Q 4. Why did the government did not sanction funds? What happened?

My laboratory studies on effects of cell phone radiation to human health began in 1999. My lab, which was government-run, was closed down in 2013 due to lack of funding as certain cell phone manufacturers and network operators in Finland were opposing the large scale human studies. We receive grants from government to conduct studies but in spite of making positive headway on research our funding was stopped. We were cut off from funding as the telecom industry was against it.
While majority of the funding for such research projects consists of tax payers money and industry pumps in only a part of the money, the advice of industry is highly valued during sanctioning of funds by the government.

Q 5. How much funding was expended during the last 15 years and how much more funding would be required to require to bring your studies to a proper conclusion?

I was working on cell phone radiation effects for the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. My research group has expended over the 15 years period well over one million euros. Some persons in the Finnish bureaucracy decided that basic research should be done in universities and thus basic research labs in government-run institutes were closed in a bid to save money in 2013. The 2009 study was planned to last about three years and entailed enrolling 100 human volunteers. There was a very real possibility of securing such funding from the EU research program but my research group was not permitted to do it. In order to continue the abruptly stopped study on humans, we would require some quarter million euros in funding. Industry provides jobs for people and therefore research policy decisions are taken by the government are influenced by it. The industry denied funding. To conduct that kind of human volunteer study, qualified personnel, laboratory space and sufficient funding is needed, of which I have none currently.

Q 6. Do you believe that the standards set by the Indian Telecommunications Ministry in September 2012 at 450 milliwatts/square meter (900MHz) for Electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation which is one tenth of what is prescribed by International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) enough when the government admitted in September 2012 that 95% of the mobile tower antennae were below the revised norms of 450 milliwatts/square meter radiation? Also, when most towers are well below those permissible limits, what is the logic behind Telecom ministry's bringing down the levels from 4500 mW/sq m to 450 mW/sq m?

ICNIRP is an organization of scientists, claiming that they are independent in their scientific opinions. However, there is a major problem – ICNIRP selects members in fashion resembling “private club” practices. The current members of ICNIRP select new members. This model leads to situation where all ICNIRP members have the same opinion on the dangers of cell phone radiation. When all ICNIRP scientists have the same opinion there is no need for scientific debate – there is a prior, existing consensus. This was not the case in the WHO’s IARC evaluation, where scientists with diverse, often opposing opinions were invited.

ICNIRP safety standards for radiation emissions from cell phones and cell towers may not be sufficient to protect people. The IARC classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen invalidates the protective claims of the current ICNIRP safety standards. In epidemiological case-control studies evaluated by IARC (Interphone and Hardell) and published after IARC evaluation (CERENAT), adult participants used regular, off-the-shelf, cell phones. These cell phones were built to fulfill ICNIRP safety standards. However, avid use of such "ICNIRP-safe phones," for period of over 10 years, led to an increased risk of brain cancer. This means that the current safety standards do not protect sufficiently users of cell phones and this also casts a doubt over the validity of safety standards set for cell towers.

Of what I have seen from the pictures of India, as also what I have seen while visiting India, there are numerous situations where there are too many antennas located en masse, in huge clusters. Whether such clusters fulfill the current Indian safety standards should be examined. It is up to the local politicians and government to make sure that safety standards are met and to determine if present safety standards are questionable.

Q 7. Certain Australian schools are banning Wi-Fi, what is the rationale behind taking such steps?

There is a discussion in Australia, Canada, US, Europe about the possibility of harm caused by Wi-Fi. Some school principals are banning Wi-Fi, due to pressure from parents of the children. Grass root movements of parents concerned with Wi-Fi in schools is, in some cases, very strong. Wi-Fi radiation is similar to that emitted by cell phones and cell towers, which have been classified as a ‘possible’ carcinogen.
We can be legitimately concerned about what might happen to children, who are very young and spend seven to eight hours continuously exposed to Wi-Fi radiation. It is a responsible precautionary measure to ban Wi-Fi in schools. There are places where providing wired internet is not possible, like in railway stations or airports, but in schools wired internet is possible to install. There is no real need for Wi-Fi for schools.
In other places, where the wired internet is not feasible, is also possible to introduce precautionary measures. In airports or railway stations, there are enclosed spaces where people can gather and smoke tobacco. Others are not exposed to smoke.
A similar thing can be done for providing Wi-Fi connectivity. There could be provided enclosed areas, with walls built of materials not allowing Wi-Fi radiation to go outside, where Wi-Fi access would be provided without unnecessary exposing everyone.

Q 8. WHO is working on a new report summarizing the health risks of radio-frequency fields, to be published next year? What is the researchers' fraternity expecting out of the report? As also, do you think there is now evidence enough after the release of French epidemiological study in 2014 that classification of cell phone radiation should be shifted from Group 2B to Group 2A or Group 1?

The yet to be released WHO report has been delayed for ten years. They were waiting for the results to see if the Interphone project was finalized and, later, for the IARC evaluation of carcinogenicity. The WHO report will analyze all effects of radiation possibly fertility in humans and other health issues, not only cancer.
ICNIRP scientists are involved in the WHO report and, therefore, one cannot expect that it will substantially differ from what ICNIRP is saying.
The recent French CERENAT epidemiological study provides, together with Interphone and Hardell studies, is an evidence sufficient to consider cell phone radiation as a probable carcinogen – Group 2A in IARC’s scale of carcinogenicity.

Q 9. Recently the industry has started a campaign stating that radiation from mobile towers and mobile phones is not hazardous. They have brought in researchers like Dr Mike Repacholi, the ex co-ordinator of the radiation and environment health unit of WHO, who has claimed there are no health hazards from mobile towers/phone radiation. Do you agree with his statements?

The industry likes to call on scientists who will endorse their product and say that it is safe. Hence, Dr Repacholi visited India and spoke publicly about the safety of cell phones as well as cell towers. I disagree with Dr Repacholi. He says that we don't have and we will not have in the future health problems due to cell phone and cell tower radiation. In my opinion the scientific evidence is still insufficient to say that cell phone radiation is harmless. We need both better research and, for the time being, implementation of the European Union’s Precautionary Principle until there is further clarity.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: DNA India, Maitri Porecha, 18 Aug 2014

War on the phone masts (old article from 2000)
United Kingdom Created: 17 Aug 2014
A mobile phone company has been banned from erecting a mast because of health fears.
The decision is the first of its kind by Government planning inspectors.
They rejected an application by Orange to erect a 30ft mast in a residential area because of the 'serious harm' it could cause to those living nearby.
The landmark move is expected to have major implications for hundreds of similar cases nationwide.
Community groups and safety campaigners have repeatedly expressed fears about the masts - which send and receive mobile phone signals -because of the possible radiation dangers.
There are fears of a link between microwave radiation from masts and conditions ranging from cancer to blood clots in the brain.
Orange wanted to erect the mast in Harrow, North-West London. The council refused the application last May after residents expressed their concerns.
The company appealed to John Prescott's Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions whose inspectors also turned the application down.
They stated: 'The need to site the installation in the location proposed does not outweigh the serious harm it would cause to neighbouring residents in terms of visual amenity and about the possible health effect.'
They claimed the company had not provided enough detail about possible radiation emissions. 'In short, there is little in the written representations expressly relating to the appeal proposal that provides any basis for allaying the fears that neighbouring residents have about it,' their report said.
Orange said it was 'considering the way forward'. Although applications for mobile phone masts have previously been rejected on health grounds by councils, including Barnet, Kent and Worcester, this is the first time the matter has gone as far as the Planning Inspectorate and been rejected.
Inspectors are preparing to issue local authorities with guidelines advising them that all telecommunications companies should provide concise details about the risks of potential radiation emissions when applying to put up masts.
Harrow councillor Navin Shah said: 'Up until now the advice to planning authorities has been that health considerations should not be taken into account, as long as the radio waves from a mast fall within recommended guidelines.
'The appeal decision at last confirms the genuine fears of local people are being recognised.'
Last year the Stewart Report, a study by 12 experts commissioned by the Department of Health, stated that children might be more vulnerable to the low-level radiation from the masts because they have thinner skulls and a developing nervous system.
The chairman, Professor Sir William Stewart, a former Government chief scientist, stressed that, on balance, there was no scientific evidence of a threat from either mobile handsets or mobile phone masts.
However, he added, that some studies indicated they caused subtle biological effects, particularly on the electrical circuitry of the brain.
Earlier this week a government advisory panel admitted there were potential health risks for children living near electricity power lines.
by NILUFER ATIK, Daily Mail
Click here to view the source article.
Source: John Weigel/Agnes Ingvarsdottir, 2000

Microwave News on CDC's new cautionary stance on cellphones
USA Created: 17 Aug 2014
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention —CDC— has become the first US health agency to call for precaution in the use of cell phones.

“Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use,” the CDC states on its Web site’s FAQ About Cell Phones and Your Health. It follows up with a call for more research to answer the unresolved cancer question.

The recommendation was posted on the CDC’s Web site on or before, June 9. It passed mostly unnoticed until a few days ago when Joel Moskowitz, who writes a blog on Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, sent out a press release announcing the news.

“I am pleased to see that the CDC, the lead public health action agency in the United States, is reassuming its leadership role by warning the public about this health risk,” he said in an interview with Microwave News. Moskowitz is the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health.

*SNIP* read the entire article via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Microwave News, Louis Slesin ph.D., 16 Aug 2014

CDC Issues Precautionary Health Warnings about Cell Phone Radiation
USA Created: 14 Aug 2014
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have issued precautionary health warnings about cell phone radiation and provide tips on how to reduce one's risk from exposure.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated the Frequently Asked Questions about cell phones and health on the CDC web site.

CDC now asserts that "Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use." As the lead Federal health action agency, CDC provides tips to the public on how to "reduce radio frequency radiation near your body."

Health authorities at the Federal, state, and local level should follow CDC's lead and disseminate precautionary health warnings to ensure that the public is adequately informed about the potential health risks of cell phone use and has the know-how to reduce exposure to the radiofrequency radiation emitted when carrying or using cell phones.

Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission should review CDC's new position in light of the Commission's obsolete regulatory standard for cell phone radiation that was adopted in 1996 when few adults used cell phones.

CDC's latest recommendations represent a considerable improvement in our Federal government's position regarding cell phone radiation health risks and the need for precaution.

CDC indicates that more research is needed to understand the health risks of exposure to cell phone radiation. Unfortunately the U.S. has been negligent in supporting research on wireless radiation health effects. A major government research funding initiative could be launched with as little as a nickel-a-month fee on wireless subscriptions. This research initiative should be conducted independent of the wireless industry as we have considerable evidence that the industry has undermined much of the research it has funded in the past.

For additional information about how to reduce your exposure to wireless radiation see the tips available on my Electromagnetic Radiation Safety web site at:

CDC FAQ on cellphones:

Click here to view the source article.
Source: PRLog, Joel M. Moskowitz Ph.D., 13 Aug 2014

«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 542   Next›  Last»