Search news: View news by countries View all news

News for USA

«First  ‹Previous   Page 41 of 41

Robert O. Becker, a towering figure in bioelectromagnetics, died on May 14
USA	Created: 30 May 2008
May 28… Robert O Becker, a towering figure in bioelectromagnetics, died on May 14 due to complications from pneumonia. He was 84 and had been ailing for some time. Becker, best known for his research on "currents of injury" and the role they play in regeneration, made significant contributions to many areas of electrobiology. He was later drawn into public controversies over health effects — Becker is credited as the first to use the term "electromagnetic pollution"— and in the end paid dearly for speaking out. Read it at link: http://www.microwavenews.com/
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Microwave News

The Larry King show
USA	Created: 29 May 2008
Dear Friends: I was informed earlier today that I have been replaced on the Larry King Live Show airing this evening by a representative from the American Cancer Society. This program change was represented to me as an attempt by CNN to provide "balance" to the panel discussing Johnnie Cochran's brain tumor. The American Cancer Society has publicly supported the view of the mobile phone industry that there is no link between cell phones and brain cancer. I do not share that same view. The producers of the show invited a written statement that they said will be read on the air, and I have provided one. That statement is attached. Please tune in, as the discussion should be very interesting. And, thank you for your continued support of this important cause...... George Tuesday, May 27, 2008 Statement from Dr. George Carlo Chairman, Science and Public Policy Institute Two years ago, I was asked by the Cochran Law Firm to review the records associated with Johnnie Cochran’s brain tumor. Based on that review, it remains my professional opinion that his tumor was caused by his cell phone use. Key points leading to that conclusion: There are more than forty epidemiological studies of people, yielding more than three hundred instances of statistically significant increases in tumor risk associated with cell phone use; there are six such instances showing a definitive absence of risk. Systematic weaknesses in the published studies, although showing 200 to 500 percent increases in risk, indicate that these are underestimates of the true brain cancer risk from cell phones. Research has identified pathological mechanisms through which cell phone radiation can cause tumors, thus providing biological plausibility to support the statistical correlations. Clinical data on people suffering from other electromagnetic radiation-related conditions ranging from electro-hypersensitivity to Autism provide further evidence of the pathological mechanisms related to cell phone use. See the Larry King show here at link: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/05/28/lkl.cell.cancer.cnn
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Agnes Ingvarsdottir. www.mast-victims.org

Dr. Carlo "replaced" on CNN Larry King Live
USA	Created: 28 May 2008
Invited to submit a written statement though. ---------------------------------------- Below is a letter from Dr. Carlo: Dear Friends: I was informed earlier today that I have been replaced on the Larry King Live Show airing this evening by a representative from the American Cancer Society. This program change was represented to me as an attempt by CNN to provide "balance" to the panel Johnnie Cochran's brain tumor. The American Cancer Society has publicly supported the view of the mobile phone industry that there is no link between cell phones and brain cancer. I do not share that same view. The producers of the show invited a written statement that they said will be read on the air, and I have provided one. That statement is attached. Please tune in, as the discussion should be very interesting. And, thank you for your continued support of this important cause...... George ---------------------------------------- Statement from Dr. George Carlo Chairman, Science and Public Policy Institute Two years ago, I was asked by the Cochran Law Firm to review the records associated with Johnnie Cochran’s brain tumor. Based on that review, it remains my professional opinion that his tumor was caused by his cell phone use. Key points leading to that conclusion: There are more than forty epidemiological studies of people, yielding more than three hundred instances of statistically significant increases in tumor risk associated with cell phone use; there are six such instances showing a definitive absence of risk. Systematic weaknesses in the published studies, although showing 200 to 500 percent increases in risk, indicate that these are underestimates of the true brain cancer risk from cell phones. Research has identified pathological mechanisms through which cell phone radiation can cause tumors, thus providing biological plausibility to support the statistical correlations. Clinical data on people suffering from other electromagnetic radiation-related conditions ranging from electro-hypersensitivity to Autism provide further evidence of the pathological mechanisms related to cell phone use.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Safewireless, Dr. George Carlo, 27 May 2008

Dr. George Carlo on Larry King live tomorrow
USA	Created: 26 May 2008
Larry King Live on CNN discusses the cell phone concerns with a debate with panel, including Dr George Carlo, Chairman of The Science and Public Policy Institute. Exclusive! Johnnie Cochran's widow and doctor on the brain tumour that took the famed attorney's life! A panel of experts debate whether cell phones can hurt your health. The segment is aired on Tuesday (May 27, 2008) at 9:00pm, EST.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: CNN.com, 26 May 2008

Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings
USA	Created: 22 May 2008
A group in Santa Fe says the city is discriminating against them because they say that they're allergic to the wireless Internet signal. And now they want Wi-Fi banned from public buildings. Arthur Firstenberg says he is highly sensitive to certain types of electric fields, including wireless Internet and cell phones. "I get chest pain and it doesn't go away right away," he said. Firstenberg and dozens of other electro-sensitive people in Santa Fe claim that putting up Wi-Fi in public places is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The city attorney is now checking to see if putting up Wi-Fi could be considered discrimination. But City Councilor Ron Trujillo says the areas are already saturated with wireless Internet. "It's not 1692, it's 2008. Santa Fe needs to embrace this technology, it's not going away," Trujillo said. The city attorney hopes to have a legal recommendation by the end of the month. Go to the source page (via link below) to watch the video clip.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: KOB-TV, Gadi Schwartz & Joshua Panas, 20 May 2008

Rejoice All! United States Sales of New mobile phones record the first FALL For Years!
USA	Created: 22 May 2008
Sales of mobile phones in the United States fell by almost a quarter during the first three months of the year as Americans tried to cope with collapsing house prices and the deteriorating credit crisis. A report by Sanford Bernstein, the Wall Street broker, says that new sales of mobiles fell by 23 per cent, marking the first slowdown in years. Craig Moffett, a telecoms analyst for Sanford Bernstein, said that he expected declines in phone sales to continue despite the $150 billion (£76 billion) tax rebate last month, devised by Washington to spur consumer spending. The findings confirm fears among Wall Street economists, who expect a large dip in consumer confidence to have a huge impact on retail sales over the next two years. Ian Shepherdson, chief US economist for High Frequency Economics, said: “Mobile phones are, on the whole, a discretionary spend item. None of us really need to upgrade to a better model. The outlook for retail sales in the US is horrible. We expect it to be extraordinarily weak for the foreseeable future, and by that I mean definitely this year and probably next. We have not hit the bottom yet.” The report said that the slowdown in new mobile phone sales had hit wireless revenue growth at Verizon, the mobile phone group in which Vodafone holds a 45 per cent stake. Verizon’s revenue growth has fallen from 17.1 per cent in the second quarter of 2007 to 14 per cent for this year’s first quarter. Sanford Bernstein expects growth to continue to slide to as low as 5.1 per cent in the first three months of 2010. Mr Moffett forecast that revenue growth for AT&T had peaked and was set to slide by as much as 50 per cent. The analyst said that growth was slowing most rapidly among customers with low incomes and children: “It is reasonable to think that in a weak economy, both of these populations would be strapped.” The slide in mobile phone sales has been driven by the use of pay-as-you-go phones in households with incomes of $75,000 to $99,000 (£38,000 to £50,000). The data is a blow to Motorola, the biggest mobile phone handset maker in the United States, which is also particularly exposed to the lower end of the market. During the first quarter, handset sales at Motorola fell 39 per cent globally, with the US, which makes up half of its business, blamed for most of it. At the end of the first quarter, Motorola controlled about a quarter of the American mobile handset market, compared with 34 per cent at the end of the first quarter of 2006, according to Strategy Analytics. Over the same period, Samsung boosted its share to 22 per cent while LG rose to 21 per cent. Elsewhere, Symbian, the mobile software group, reported a sharp slowdown in growth, with shipments up only 17 per cent to 18.5 million units in the three months to March 31 against a growth rate of more than 50 per cent in previous quarters.

Bar Harbor Planning Board looks to increase cell tower setbacks
USA	Created: 20 May 2008
BAR HARBOR – Federal law prohibits towns from considering the possible health effects of the electromagnetic emissions of cell phone antennas in establishing rules governing the location of antennas. So, it couldn’t possibly be because of health concerns that the Planning Board is looking to increase the distance that wireless communication towers have to be set back from schools and child care centers. Instead, board members indicated last week that they will try to find some other plausible justification for whatever setback distances they would like the town to adopt. Bar Harbor currently has no rules governing cell phone towers. Citizens will vote June 10 on a proposed ordinance that would place some restrictions on where towers could be erected. It would require, for example, that towers be at least 500 feet from public schools. A number of citizens have complained that the proposed ordinance would not be nearly restrictive enough to protect people, especially children, from what they believe are the harmful effects of cell phone antenna emissions. They have cited a number of studies linking prolonged exposure to such emissions to higher risks of various types of cancer and other diseases. In response to those concerns, the Planning Board agreed in March to consider suggestions for amending the cell tower ordinance, should it be approved next month. November would be the earliest that a town-wide vote could be held on any amendments. Last Wednesday, the Planning Board held a workshop to hear what citizens had to say about the ordinance and to discuss changes they would like to see. Only a few citizens showed up, and those who spoke talked about the perceived health effects of close proximity to cell phone antennas. Board member Lynne Williams said the minimum setback from schools should be greater than 500 feet and should apply to all schools, not just public schools. She said the town also should establish minimum setbacks from day care centers and, perhaps, from residences. Ms. Williams cited the town of Palermo’s ordinance that prohibits cell phone towers within a half-mile of the community’s only school and within 1,000 feet of residences unless the property owners waive the setback. She and other board members agreed that half-mile (2,640 feet) setbacks probably wouldn’t be realistic in this community and likely wouldn’t stand up in court. But they seemed to favor setbacks greater than 500 feet for schools and child care facilities, provided they can justify the setbacks in a way that doesn’t violate the federal ban on considering potential health effects. “With this federally mandated cloud over our heads, we need to find other ways to achieve the same results,” Board chair Kay Stevens-Rosa said. Board member Kevin Cochary agreed, suggesting that the board might cite aesthetic or safety reasons for writing greater setbacks into the ordinance. Board member David Bowden said it would be helpful if the Planning Department staff would draw circles on a map of the town to show exactly where and how extensive no-tower zones would be if the town was to require setbacks of various distances – between 500 feet and half a mile – for schools and child care facilities. “That would make it easier for me to choose a setback number,” Mr. Bowden said. The other board members agreed, and Planning Director Anne Krieg said she would do “a mapping of setbacks to see what that looks like.” She said she would submit proposed changes to the cell tower ordinance for the Planning Board to consider at its June 4 meeting. The board has to recommend any changes to the Town Council by June 17 in order for those changes to be on the ballot at the November election.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Maine Coast Now, Dick Broom, 19 May 2008

Marbleheaders fighting second cell phone antenna
USA	Created: 20 May 2008
MARBLEHEAD — Three years ago when the Water Department allowed a cell phone antenna array atop its water tower at 25 Tower Way, resident Barbara Karademos didn't hear a word about it. But she can hear them now. Karademos is one of several residents alarmed to learn that a second antenna array is slated to go on the water tower. "I've read that the microwave radiation from the antenna is harmful to human beings," she said. "We live in a heavily populated area. Between two streets with houses all along." It's been doubly disturbing, she indicated, given that she hadn't known the first antenna was there. That one belongs to T-Mobile and was allowed "by right." In other words, no hearing process was required. The new antenna will go before the Planning Board on May 27. But because of the restrictions on local authority imposed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, stopping it would be a problem. "The lease has been signed," said Water and Sewer Department Superintendent Dana Snow. "I don't know what they can do." The new antenna is slated to provide cell phone service through a company called MetroPCS. Snow explained yesterday that his board was approached and readily agreed to the antenna, which, like the first, will bring the town rental income of more than $20,000 a year. "We are not aware of any known health effects," said Snow. To stress the point, he noted that one of the board's longtime members, Wilbur Bassett "lives under the tower." Other members live within blocks. "I live one street away," said the superintendent. Snow complained that documents distributed by critics like Karademos are not even-handed in assessing the health dangers of such devices. Karademos attended last week's meeting of the selectmen, along with Linda Weltner and Rachael Gerny. They hope to gather more supporters for an appearance before the Planning Board. "I don't think this is a proper place to put this equipment," Karademos said. "It's unfair. It's very unfair." Complicating matters, explained Selectman Bill Woodfin, is the fact that the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically forbids local boards from even considering issues related to the health risks associated with such technology. "We all know how that happened," Woodfin said. "Telecommunications companies ran in there with big lobbying organizations. ... Congress has sold the public down the street." He did agree, however, that the public is of two minds on this issue. No one wants these antennas nearby. But everyone seems to want a cell phone.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Salem News, Alan Burke, 20 May 2008

Cindy Sage comments on recent cellphone-pregnancy study
USA	Created: 19 May 2008
It would not be surprising that cell phone use by mothers-to-be can trigger inflammatory conditions leading to altered brain development in the fetus, which in turn might lead to behavioral disorders later in the child. The BioInitiative Report (Chapter 8 - Immune Function) reports a long history of studies documenting allergic and inflammatory conditions with EMF exposure. Inflammatory responses to illness in mothers during pregnancy has alrready been suggested as a plausible biological mechanism for altered brain development in the child, with potential impacts on mental health (Scientific American, April 2008, Melinda Wenner). Cytokine production is an inflammatory response in the mother to infection, and may be triggered by other environmental exposures including EMF. Cytokine production is known to affect neurons in the developing brain of the fetus. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=infected-with-insanity Prenatal exposure to cell phone radiation, either by indirect effect on the immune system of the mother, or by direct effect of cell phone radiation on the fetus has enormous public health consequences. If it is phone-to-fetus exposure that is important, it might be the ELF component of the exposure (from battery switching of the phone) that is important rather than the RF component which is presumably very low. We reported in 2007 that ELF levels from cell phones and PDAs can produce excessively high ELF emissions when worn on or close to the body (Sage CL Johansson O Sage SA. Personal digital assistant (PDA) cell phone units produce elevated extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field emissions . Bioelectromagnetics 28, No.5, July 2007). In either case, these effects, if true, show that existing public safety limits are inadequate for the fetus.This is one more important study documenting the fact that new, biologically-based limits are needed. Cindy Sage Co-Editor BioInitiative Report
Click here to view the source article.
Source: EMFacts, Cindy Sage, 19 May 2008

Medical Alert
USA	Created: 19 May 2008
Aggravated Symptom Relapses Reported after Use of Widely-Available EMR Protection Products Reasons for this Advisory: An alarmingly high number of patients with electro-hypersensitivity and other related conditions are reporting serious symptom relapses after periods of time when symptoms were apparently mitigated by use of products that claim to be protective against electro-magnetic radiation (EMR) related disease. ·The symptom relapses are reportedly more severe than the symptoms that defined the original illnesses – suggesting that the patients are sicker after the use of the purported protective products than before the use. ·We fear that consumers are being lured into a false sense of security by their use of widely-available products purporting to prevent disease – causing consumers to unknowingly compound the effects of dangerous exposures by increasing their use of wireless devices. · In the United States as well as globally, no steps have been taken by either the Food and Drug Administration or any other regulatory authority to protect patients and consumers from this apparent danger. · Thus, out intent is to empower consumers to protect themselves in this regard. Scientific Underpinning: Science and Public Policy Institute 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW - 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20004 202-756-7744 www.sppionline.org ·Several patients with electro-hypersensitivity and other conditions associated in the scientific literature with EMR exposure are reporting symptom relapses that are believed to be more severe than the symptoms that led to their original diagnosis. ·These patients, , being treated by clinicians in our contact network, also report having used products widely available on the open market that claim to mitigate, neutralize, counteract, eliminate, or otherwise protect against harmful effects of EMR, without the benefit of careful clinical supervision. · The average time of using these products before the symptom relapses occured is reported in the range of nine to 18 months. · There is biological plausibility supporting these reports of adverse reactions. · The mechanisms of harm now believed to be associated with EMR disease underscore the need to comprehensively and simultaneously address mitigation of exposure, amelioration of symptoms and repair of biological damage done by prolonged exposure to EMR · When symptoms are not addressed comprehensively – for example, using symptom amelioration without simultaneous elimination of exposure – cell membrane adverse reaction and damage continue to occur while the patient is assuming the cause of the problem has been eliminated. This lulls patients into a false sense of security, causing them to aggravate their exposures through increased use of their wireless devices. When the damage reaches a critically harmful level, even the symptom amelioration can no longer be sustained by the damaged cells. · Pregnant women are a special concern in view of recent data showing damage to the fetus in the form of both altered secondary sex ratio and latent appearance of adolescent behavioral problems. Low levels of EMR exposure have been reported in these studies – suggesting impacts of even subtle amounts of extraneous energy on fetal development. This suggests that products that produce subtle energy as intervention would be biologically active as well, and especially dangerous to the developing fetus. What Can Patients and Consumers Do to Protect Themselves? 1. Be Empowered by the Knowledge That Product Testing Standards Exist For Your Benefit and Demand That Protection from Those Selling You Products. · Whether or not a product is regulated by a government agency, any company selling a product has a legal responsibility to warm consumers of potential dangers. Obtaining the necessary knowledge requires specifically focused scientific study addressing both the safety parameters of the product and the usefulness (efficacy) of its action in preventing or treating disease. This is a product liability requirement for all companies engaged in the sale of products that have biological, chemical or physical activity. · Note that if a product does not have biological, chemical or physical activity, it by definition can not have a beneficial effect in mitigating disease – because mitigation requires biological, chemical or physical action. Thus, any product that claims to mitigate disease or symptoms is required by law to have supportive science. · There are international standards of care that define acceptable parameters for safety and efficacy studies. These guidelines can be obtained from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other similar agencies around the world. · The most relevant requirements of the FDA and similar agencies around the world with regard to product testing standards intended to protect consumers and standards to which consumers are legally entitled, include the following: § The FDA and similar agencies make decisions about approving products through review of scientific data, submitted by product companies, that attest to company claims of both the safety of the product (whether or not it produces adverse reactions such as those reported here), and the efficacy (usefulness) in preventing or treating symptoms and disease. § Safety Studies: Whenever a company makes a claim of efficacy, there is a presumption the product has biological, chemical or physical activity. As such, there is a presumption of potential harm or danger coming from the product if it is misused. The company must therefore address, through science, problems that could occur: if the product is administered in doses that are too high; if administered in an inappropriate manner; or if administered along with other interventions or drugs that may cause an adverse reaction because of combination effects. § Efficacy Studies: Specific applications of the product need to be addressed in the pre-market research. Only those uses supported by science can be legally promoted by the company. Other uses – called off label uses – carry stiff monetary and criminal penalties. § To ensure the integrity and honesty of the company-submitted science, the FDA requires that all studies follow internationally accepted standards of Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) and Good Clinical Practices (GCP). Studies that do not meet these requirements are not considered by the FDA in decision making because those studies are presumed to be suspect or flawed. § Even with these pre-market testing requirements in place, problems can be missed and mistakes can be made. Thus, the FDA also requires post-market surveillance where adverse reactions to products that have been previously approved are catalogued and reported – first to the FDA and then to the public. 2. Demand to See Proof of Safety and Efficacy Before Buying or Using Any Product that Claims Protection. · Consumers have a right to the highest standard of care from those who claim to have either preventive or therapeutic interventions for EMR hazards, irrespective of whether or not the FDA or another agency requires that specific studies be done prior to marketing and sale. An honest company acting in integrity will do the work required to protect those who use their products – and then be proud to let consumers know the results of their work. Product inserts and package labeling should contain enough information to insure that consumer rights are not being violated. · Before buying or using any EMR intervention product, consumers should: § Require proof in product inserts or on packaging that studies of safety have been completed according to acceptable scientific protocols, including independent peer review as evidenced by either publication in peer reviewed journals or by disclosure of the names of the independent peer reviewers. § Require proof in product inserts or on packaging that those studies of safety address: dosing specific to the manner in which the intervention is used; contraindications – especially with regard to young children and pregnant women; specific administration protocols for both symptomatic and non-symptomatic potential users; and proof that the studies have been corroborated by different laboratories or investigators. § Require proof in product inserts or on packaging that studies of efficacy have been completed according to acceptable scientific clinical protocols – also including evidence of independent peer review and corroboration of findings. The studies should include clear written documentation of the mechanisms through which the products are supposed to work in preventing or treating conditions. § Require proof in product inserts or on packaging that a program of post-market monitoring of adverse reactions exists as well as procedures to notify and warn consumers of problems when necessary. 3. If You are Symptomatic, Do Not Self Medicate or Take Advice on Your Condition from People Selling Products Who Are Not Clinically Qualified or Otherwise Professionally Knowledgeable of EMR Health Effects and Mitigation. · Any person with symptoms of electro-hypersensitivity, including multiple chemical sensitivities, Autism, ADHD, anxiety syndrome, Parkinson's, alcoholism, drug addiction and Alzheimer's should only use EMR intervention products with appropriate guidance from a qualified clinician. · The underlying pathologies in these conditions are similar and thus require careful monitoring whenever EMR targeted interventions are added. If this is not done, severe adverse reactions can occur – sometimes as part of the normal healing process, and sometimes not. 'Only qualified professionals can identify which is which. Contact: Dr. George Carlo (drcarlo@safewireless.org); (202) 756-7744 http://www.safe-wireless.org http://www.health-concerns.org Sunday, May 18, 2008
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Dr. George Carlo (drcarlo@safewireless.org); (202) 756-7744

«First  ‹Previous   Page 41 of 41

News item: