News for USA
|Page 1 of 176  Next› Last»|
|Electronics giant Intel to Exit 5G Smartphone Modem Business|
|USA||Created: 18 Apr 2019|
Intel Corporation today announced its intention to exit the 5G smartphone modem business and complete an assessment of the opportunities for 4G and 5G modems in PCs, internet of things devices and other data-centric devices. Intel will also continue to invest in its 5G network infrastructure business.
The company will continue to meet current customer commitments for its existing 4G smartphone modem product line, but does not expect to launch 5G modem products in the smartphone space, including those originally planned for launches in 2020.
“We are very excited about the opportunity in 5G and the ‘cloudification’ of the network, but in the smartphone modem business it has become apparent that there is no clear path to profitability and positive returns,” said Intel CEO Bob Swan. “5G continues to be a strategic priority across Intel, and our team has developed a valuable portfolio of wireless products and intellectual property. We are assessing our options to realize the value we have created, including the opportunities in a wide variety of data-centric platforms and devices in a 5G world.”
Intel expects to provide additional details in its upcoming first-quarter 2019 earnings release and conference call, scheduled for April 25.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Intel Newsroom, 16 Apr 2019|
|Larkspur joins fight against 5G wireless|
|USA||Created: 11 Apr 2019|
The battle for control over hardware that transmits wireless internet is heating up in city halls throughout Marin — this week in Larkspur — where city officials joined the fight amid concerns that 5G could soon be rolled out without the city’s oversight.
The City Council on Wednesday approved regulations that define Larkspur’s application process for companies hoping to install wireless-transmitting hardware in the city. The rules, approved unanimously on a first reading, allow city officials to ask companies to submit designs and explain why they choose certain sites over others.
More than a dozen Marin residents implored the council to keep 5G out of Larkspur. Some said they’ve experienced negative health effects that they associate with wireless frequencies, and said they were concerned stronger waves could exacerbate those conditions. The symptoms reported included anxiety, depression, insomnia and trouble focusing, among others.
“We’re not handcuffed. We don’t have to lie down,” Ruth Wiseman of Kentfield told the City Council on Wednesday.
Federal regulations, first adopted decades ago and fortified this year, limit the ability for local governments to restrict wireless infrastructure. Those laws, according to the Federal Communications Commission, are aimed at maintaining a free market for the communications industry.
With the fifth-generation wireless technology, or 5G, on the way, communities like Larkspur are concerned. The new technology operates on higher radio frequencies than older iterations of wireless. Those frequencies transmit data faster, but they don’t travel as far. As a result, more transmitters will be needed and they’ll need to be placed closer to the people using them — on telephone poles and light posts in the public right of way.
Without local policies in place that set guidelines for companies hoping to set up the new hardware, municipalities have little ability to dictate where the infrastructure is installed and how it looks.
Larkspur officials said they wanted to act before telecommunications companies start flooding in.
“We want to give the city maximum flexibility with respect to how we can adapt to this, and also provide the maximum protection we can against those things we don’t know about yet,” said Councilman Dan Hillmer.
But for some, like Wiseman, the city’s attempt at control doesn’t go far enough. The new technology, she said, is concerning for another reason.
“It has not been proven safe,” she told the City Council. “The increased radiation exposure inherent in 5G technology is cause for serious concern.”
Bonnie McMurray of San Anselmo said she hasn’t slept well since 2012. She attributes that to the proliferation of wireless technology.
“Even when I go to the Apple store, I have a really hard time maintaining my focus,” she said.
But federal law prohibits local governments from restricting wireless-transmitting hardware on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. The Federal Communications Commission has determined what it calls safe levels of emissions, and says that technology that complies with its standards can’t be prohibited.
The 5G rollout has spurred international competition among countries eager to get it up and running. The new system is expected to boost internet speeds and is billed as a revolutionary technology that will be necessary to make possible future innovations, such as driverless cars.
As the race for 5G slogs on, federal officials say that fewer regulations allow companies to deploy the technology more rapidly and with fewer expenses.
Despite the potential benefits, a group of Marin residents that has formed a “5G-free Marin Task Force” is urging local jurisdictions to take a stand against the technology on the basis of health concerns — despite the potential legal ramifications for those municipalities.
“You’ll never regret the strictness,” McMurray said. “But you will regret if we all, you know, go down with the bees.”
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Marin Independent Journal, Matthew Pera, 04 Apr 2019|
|High court says cities can consider visual effects of wireless equipment on streets|
|USA||Created: 11 Apr 2019|
The California Supreme Court ruled in San Francisco Thursday that cities have a right to regulate the placement of wireless telephone equipment on utility poles to accommodate aesthetic concerns.
The seven-member court unanimously upheld a 2011 San Francisco law that requires telephone companies to obtain a permit before placing equipment on utility poles on public streets and sidewalks.
The city ordinance requires a heightened consideration of aesthetic factors in certain areas, including residential districts, historicdistricts and scenic streets, before a permit can be granted.
T-Mobile West Corp. and two other wireless companies that challenged the ordinance argued it violated a state law that allows telephone companies to construct lines and install equipment along public roads.
The state law says the installation must be done in ways and in locations that do not “incommode the public use of the road.”
T-Mobile argued that the measure allowed restrictions only when needed to prevent installations from impeding traffic.
But the high court said the word “incommode” includes having a negative effect on peaceful enjoyment of public roads and sidewalks, and that San Francisco therefore had a right to consider visual effects.
Justice Carol Corrigan wrote, “The city has inherent local police power to determine the appropriate uses of land within its jurisdiction.That power includes the authority to establish aesthetic conditions for land use.”
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement,”Private companies don’t have free rein when it comes to using a publicresource. San Francisco doesn’t prohibit this equipment from being installed. We’re simply requiring companies to take reasonable steps to minimize theobtrusiveness of their installations.
A T-Mobile spokesman said the company has no comment.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: San Fransisco Examiner, BAY CITY NEWS, 04 Apr 2019|
|California Supreme Court Rules Against Wireless Industry|
|USA||Created: 5 Apr 2019|
The war between the wireless industry and local jurisdictions took another turn today as the California Supreme Court upheld a lower courts’ rulings in favor of San Francisco’s wireless ordinance in a unanimous decision.
The original lawsuit, T-Mobile West, Crown Castle and ExteNet Systems (California) v. City and County of San Francisco, was filed after the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance in 2011 that required a wireless facility site permit from the City’s Department of Public Works.
The wireless industry lost in the San Francisco County Superior Court and then again in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Div. 5.
In 2011, the City and County of San Francisco passed an ordinance requiring that a site-specific permit be obtained before seeking to construct, install or maintain telecommunications equipment in the public right-of- way. At issue was an ordinance that established various standards of aesthetic compatibility for wireless equipment and whether it was preempted by a Public Utilities Code. Another question was whether ordinance singled out wireless equipment and was therefore discriminatory.
California is one of the states without a law streamlining small cell deployment. The court case may have ramifications at the statehouse in California as legislators attempt to pass a law streamlining small cell deployment.
“This will definitely have an impact the state legislation on small cell deployment expected to be introduced this term,” said Jonathan Kramer, principal, Telecom Law Firm, and expert witness for the cities. “It will be difficult for the legislature to walk back this decision, which is based on decades of historical precedent for the right of way use by telecoms in California.”
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: AGL Media Group, J. Sharpe Smith, 04 Apr 2019|
|From moms to medical doctors, burnout is everywhere these days|
|USA||Created: 30 Mar 2019|
A common ailment is going around, and you probably know someone plagued by it. Caused in part by social media, the 24-hour news cycle and the pressure to check work email outside of office hours, it could hit you, too — especially if you don’t know how to nip it in the bud.
Burnout is everywhere.
Books are being published about it, high-powered medical groups are raising alarms and ordinary people are feeling it. A recent report from Harvard and Massachusetts medical organizations declared physician burnout a public health crisis. It pointed out the problem not only harms doctors but also patients.
“Burnout is associated with increasing medical errors,” the paper said.
Ninety-five percent of human resource leaders say burnout is sabotaging workplace retention, often because of overly heavy workloads, one survey found. Poor management contributes to the burnout epidemic.
“Organizations typically reward employees who are putting in longer hours and replace workers who aren’t taking on an increased workload, which is a systematic problem that causes burnout in the first place,” says Dan Schawbel, research director of Future Workplace, the firm that conducted the survey along with Kronos.
"Mommy Burnout," a book published last year by psychologist Sheryl Ziegler, resonated with women who had run themselves into the ground trying to be super mom (and dads made it clear they were burned out, too).
A new book, “Burnout: The Secret to Unlocking the Stress Cycle,” by sisters Emily Nagoski (a health educator) and Amelia Nagoski (a choral conductor who was hospitalized for burnout) aims to help women, in particular, live a more balanced life.
Burnout is a term easily tossed around, the way somebody might claim to be starving when they’re simply hungry, or freezing when cold. That’s harmless if a person is describing a tired day or week. But somebody who is actually burned out should be prepared to take serious action because it’s a condition that needs attention.
Amelia Nagoski was juggling the demands of a doctoral program when she experienced such severe abdominal pain she was hospitalized. Doctors concluded it was “just stress” and told her to relax. Turns out, she had stress-induced inflammation from burnout.
Ziegler defines burnout as “chronic stress gone awry.” The big three symptoms are emotional exhaustion, cynicism and feeling ineffective, according to the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), a survey designed to measure employee burnout in the workforce. Other symptoms can include frequent colds or sicknesses, insomnia and a tendency to alleviate stress in unhealthy ways, such as with too much alcohol or online shopping.
Part of the difficulty of pinpointing true burnout may be because burnout is a nonmedical term — at least in the United States. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders doesn’t list it as an illness. But other countries including France, Denmark and Sweden, do recognize burnout syndrome and consider it to be a legitimate reason to take a sick day from work.
“Everybody intuitively recognizes what burnout feels like in their bodies and their feelings and their thoughts,” Emily Nagoski says. “It’s like art: You know it when you see it.”
Even without an official diagnosis — or agreed upon definition — American researchers have studied burnout for decades. Psychologist Herbert Freudenberger popularized the term in the 1970s, basing it on his work with drug addicts where he witnessed their veins burn out from needle injections and their cigarettes burn down. Soon after, psychologist Christina Maslach developed the MBI.
Burnout is caused by chronic stress, not stressors, the Nagoskis say in their book. It’s important to differentiate the two. Stressors are external: to-do lists, financial problems or anxiety about the future. Stress, on the other hand, “is the neurological and physiological shift that happens in your body when you encounter [stressors],” the Nagoskis write.
To fix burnout, people need to address the stress itself. They must allow their body to complete its stress response cycle. Instead, people tend to focus on stressors. “They assume their stress will go away if they’re on top of things, if they’re accomplishing things and constantly checking things off their to-do list,” Emily Nagoski says.
That’s a lesson Paula Davis-Laack learned the hard way.
Davis-Laack practiced commercial real estate law before the Great Recession of the late 2000s. The fast-paced environment gave her a constant adrenaline high as she closed deals and kept so busy that she barely left time to grab a handful of peanuts for lunch. Her frequent headaches, stomach aches and colds threatened to drag her down, but no doctor could give her a diagnosis.
One day, drafting a document in her office, she says she felt like she couldn’t breathe. She bolted out of her chair and raced to a nearby health clinic. “Help me!” she gasped. She was having a panic attack. After two more medical crises landed her in the emergency room, she feared a mental or physical collapse if she kept going. She decided to walk away from the law.
“It was like a 50,000-pound weight lifted off my shoulders,” she says.
Still unsure of what was wrong, she poked around the Internet doing research of her own when she came across information on burnout. “I was like, ‘Oh my God, this is exactly what happened to me!’ ”
Davis-Laack traces the beginning of her burnout back to her teenage years.
“There were a lot of messages to be a high achiever,” she says. “Those check-the-box matrix measurements were important to me. I internalized them.”
The messages took an even stronger hold once she started working.
She returned to graduate school to study well-being, the effects of stress and their effect on the workplace. In 2013, she opened the Davis Laack Stress & Resilience Institute in Wisconsin. She now teaches workshops on burnout.
For those who suspect they might be on the road to burnout, there are practical tools to mitigate it. Among others: physical exercise, sleep and positive social connection (the real kind, not the Facebook kind). The importance of balance and self-care to prevent burnout likely isn’t surprising to most.
“There’s nothing fancy about what it would take to turn things around,” says Ziegler, the “Mommy Burnout” author. “But it’s a huge shift in the cultural mind-set. That’s the challenge.”
Plus, fixing burnout can feel like adding more stressors. An employee who takes a lunch break in a park (time in nature reduces stress) might feel pressured to stay late at the end of the day. A yoga class or walk is another item to squeeze into the calendar. A mom can’t quit her parenting job. To address time-management issues, the Nagoskis provide work sheets in their book to help readers reprioritize activities. Ziegler suggests setting boundaries with social media. Use the Internet for help, such as ordering groceries, but limit scrolling to 10 minutes a day. Also, it’s okay to remove activities from the calendar (or quit them completely) so you can exercise.
Gender might play a role in burnout, too.
Researchers from the University of Montreal questioned 2,026 people, half women, in 63 different workplaces. Their work, published in the Annals of Work Exposure and Health, found that women reported higher levels of burnout.
One reason was because women have more work-and-family conflicts. The women’s rights movement was “supposed to give women choices,” Ziegler says. “Sounds awesome, but it became you need to do it all. You need to run your house and be the perfect wife and mom and work. The stress on women got higher.”
Other studies have shown that rates of burnout are more or less equal among genders, although males and females experience it differently. A study published in BMC Public Health showed that female physicians are susceptible to burnout from emotional exhaustion while male physicians to burnout because of cynicism.
Steven Manning remembers the night he realized he had become pessimistic about practicing medicine. One Wednesday at his family care practice in Williamston, N.C., he worked on electronic medical records well past 9 p.m. His wife and kids waited for him at home. He had seen about 30 patients that day but felt he hadn’t given a single one the highest level of care because the appointment times were too short. Yet the hospital and insurance companies kept pressuring him to see more patients a day, not fewer.
“I began to think, ‘I’m burned out. How did I get to this point? I don’t enjoy coming into work.’ ” It wasn’t too late to make a change. Within a year, Manning started a direct primary care practice, a model where patients pay a membership fee, negating the need for insurance billing. Without mounds of paperwork, he had time to do what he truly wanted: help patients.
“It brought back the joy of medicine I felt I was missing,” he says. “Before, I barely had time to address my patients’ diabetes, hypertension and heart failure, let alone spend time taking a mental and spiritual inventory.”
Now, he talks with patients about depression, anxiety and stress and notices many patients are burned out, especially mothers of young kids.
Lawyer and mom Anna Swain knows the feeling.
She poured her heart and soul into fixing the troubled lives of criminals who had messed up with drugs and violence only to wind up devastated when her hard work seemed pointless.
“I’d call my mom every day on my way home from the office crying,” she says. “I was either sad over a client who was having her third meth-addicted baby or crying over a shockingly rude email by opposing counsel.” When she added motherhood to the mix, her feelings of failure increased. “I didn’t know what I was doing. Nobody does with a first child.”
Burned out on “doing the next thing I was supposed to do to be a good girl and get ahead,” she knew she needed downtime, but she was afraid to take a step back from the hamster wheel. “Boredom goes against everything we’re told to do to succeed, achieve and be proactive,” Swain says. “Even when I clean the house, I think, ‘Well, I should take the opportunity to listen to a podcast. Maybe I can grow as a person.’ Honestly, I’d grow more if I chose to be in silence and let my mind wander.”
She tried it. Rocking her baby to sleep, she wanted to watch the TV series “Game of Thrones” or scroll through her phone. But she couldn’t. One wrong move — or the glow of a screen — would wake her baby up. At first, Swain felt angry and resentful at the lack of distractions, but the stillness gave her an opportunity to daydream. That opened the door to creativity.
“I started creating little poems and rhymes in my head. I felt exhilarated,” she says. Eventually, Swain wrote a children’s book. “I felt a sense of purpose again,” she says.
The Nagoskis agree that daydreaming during low-demand tasks, having a creative outlet and engaging with something larger are three more keys to preventing burnout. They suggest writing your own obituary to find out what is meaningful to you.
“It sounds dark,” Amelia Nagoski says. “But it makes you think about who you are and what’s important to you.”
Making space in our lives so we’re not so hurried and harried isn’t easy, especially in a culture that shames slow living, Amelia Nagoski says. Preventing burnout requires hard decisions. Everyone has the same amount of time in a day: 24 hours. To rest — whether with a walk, an extra hour of sleep or a talk with a friend — means something else drops off the schedule.
At first, you might panic that you’re not “accomplishing” something. But before long, you may notice you’ve moved farther away from a breaking point. Your downward spiral will change directions.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Washington Post, Jenny Rough, 30 Mar 2019|
|Proposed bills in Oregon legislature would fund research of radiation risk from electronics|
|USA||Created: 29 Mar 2019|
Oregon lawmakers are considering requiring state officials to study if there is a risk of radiation from electronics, particularly in classrooms.
Legislators have introduced several different bills addressing wireless technology and safety.
One requires the Oregon Health Authority and the Department of Education to study the effects of long-term exposure to microwave radiation in classrooms. That includes from Wi-Fi routers, laptops and smart boards.
“These technologies are so new to us and it is our fiduciary responsibility to make sure that we at least look at the research,” said Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson.
Another bill would require caution labels on devices that emit radiations. A third would limit classroom screen time.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: KPIC, KATU News, 28 Mar 2019|
|Proposed bill removes Telecom liability for health damage|
|USA||Created: 28 Mar 2019|
Radiofrequency Radiation Site Safety Information Act of 2018.
At the bottom of bill H. R. 7236 there is a section removing liability for radiation damages from Telecoms and their employees:
“(e) Limitation of liability.—A person described in subsection (b)(1) with respect to a covered facility shall not be liable in any civil action for an injury alleged to have been caused by radiofrequency radiation emissions of such facility, if such person is in compliance with the information sharing requirement under subsection (c) with respect to such facility during the period that—
“(A) in the case of an injury that is alleged to have occurred on or after the day that is 180 days after the date on which the database is established under subsection (a), on the date on which the injury is alleged to have occurred; or
“(B) in the case of an injury that is alleged to have occurred before the day described in subparagraph (A), on such day;
“(2) ends on the date on which there is a final disposition, from which no appeal may be taken, in such civil action; and
“(3) excludes any time when such information sharing requirement does not apply to such person.
“(f) Definitions.—In this section:
“(1) COVERED FACILITY.—The term ‘covered facility’ means a facility, operation, or transmitter that—
“(A) is subject to the radiofrequency radiation exposure limits set forth in section 1.1310 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations; and
“(B) is in a fixed location.
“(2) FIXED LOCATION.—The term ‘fixed location’ means, with respect to a facility, operation, or transmitter, that such facility, operation, or transmitter is physically secured at one location and is not able to be easily moved to another location.”.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Congress.gov, 12 Okt 2018|
|Cell Tower to be Removed After 4th Ripon Student Diagnosed with Cancer|
|USA||Created: 28 Mar 2019|
After 4 students and 3 teachers were diagnosed with cancer within a 3-year period, Sprint has finally agreed to remove a cell tower at a Ripon, California school. While it is exceedingly difficult to identify the cause of a cancer cluster, parents and students in the San Joaquin County school are convinced there is one and it is caused by the campus cell tower. They are not only protesting but several have abandoned the small school which now features 4 rare cancers in students -2 brain tumors, one kidney cancer and one liver cancer. Investigations of not only cell tower radiation but also water quality have been initiated. After 200 parents stormed the school board meeting, school officials were prompted to ask for the cell tower to be removed at the K-8 school. Sprint has agreed to do so.
Parents Opposed the Cell Tower Before it was Placed
The cell tower was placed at Weston Elementary School 10 years ago and a group of parents opposed the cell tower construction before it was erected, citing health concerns. According to news reports, they have another 15 years left on the 25-year lease with a rental fee of about $2,000 per month paid to the school. A Go Petition to have the cell tower removed was initiated in 2017 after 2 children in the school developed cancer.
Radiofrequency Levels Are Within FCC Guidelines
Officials have maintained that the radiofrequency radiation levels were below the federal standard when measured and they are in compliance. Questions remain about the safety of cell towers, as well as the current standards, which many experts state are not protective of human or environmental health. Current FCC regulations for human exposure are based on heating of tissues and short term exposures, not harmful biological effects demonstrated at much lower levels in the scientific literature.
Even though the cause of any particular cancer may never be determined is there scientific evidence that removing the cell tower and taking this precautionary approach is warranted?
Is Cell Tower Radiation Toxic?
Cell towers as well as Wi-Fi create continuous emissions of pulsed microwave radiation. Microwave ovens which use similar radiofrequencies at higher power cook by heat, however, at lower power adverse biological effects have been demonstrated in scientific studies without heating or burning the tissue. One mechanism of toxicity that has been clearly shown is oxidative damage in 93 of 100 studies (Yakymenko 2016) . Wireless radiation passes through and is absorbed in the body and organs and thus can potentially cause broad harm to cellular structures and internal organs. Damage from RFR is cumulative as it is with ionizing radiation and other toxic exposures. It is also non-linear in its effects due to individual variation in genetics, nutrition and health.
Cell Towers and Cancer
In 2011 IARC listed radiofrequency radiation (RFR) as a possible carcinogen. Scientists have argued that considering the current level of published research on brain tumors and radio frequency radiation that RFR should be listed as a Class 1 Known Carcinogen. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Study on Cancer and Cell Phones announced their findings in 2018, after 10 years of research on RFR, and showed DNA damage (a precursor to cancer) and clear evidence of carcinogenicity of wireless radiation emissions. They demonstrated in carefully conducted studies a significant increase in tumors of internal organs including the heart, brain and adrenal medulla (which sits just above the kidney). Another worrisome finding from the NTP was the development of aging of the heart in the exposed cohort.
Distance from Cell Towers and Cancer Rates
A study by Wolf and Wolf (2004) showed a significant increase in cancer in those living within 350 feet of a cell tower. Eger (2004) found an increase in new cancer cases within a 10-year period if residents lived within 400 meters of a cell tower. They also found that within 5 years of operation of the transmitting base station the relative risk of cancer development tripled in residents near the cell tower compared to resident living outside the area. Dode (2011) performed a 10-year study (1996-2006) examining the distance from cell towers and cancer clusters. He and his colleagues found a significant increase in cancers in those living within 500 meters of the cell tower. They noted, “The largest density power was 40.78 μW/cm2, and the smallest was 0.04 μW/cm2.” The current guidelines are about 1000 μW/cm2.
They conclude “Measured values stay below Brazilian Federal Law limits that are the same of ICNIRP. The human exposure pattern guidelines are inadequate. More restrictive limits must be adopted urgently.”
Cell Towers, Illness and Cognitive Decline in Students
Cancer is not the only worry with cell towers. The majority of studies on cell towers internationally have shown adverse effects with cell towers in close proximity to residencies and schools. Findings include symptoms of dizziness, headaches, nausea, memory loss, and fatigue in those living within about 400 feet of a cell tower. These are symptoms of “microwave illness” reported by NASA in servicemen working on radar systems. A recent study conducted over 2 years looking at the effects of cell towers near two schools by Meo (2018) demonstrated cognitive dysfunction in students closest to the higher power cell tower.
Cell Towers and Blood Cell Abnormalities
There is also a recent study showing blood abnormalities in those living nearest to cell towers (Zothansiama 2017). DNA and lipid abnormalities were seen along with reduction in internal antioxidants which provide protection from pollutants.
Cell Towers, Wi Fi, Laptops and Cell Phones All Emit RFR
Cell towers are not the only source of potentially harmful radiofrequency radiation in schools. Most schools today have converted from the original wired classrooms to wireless with the use of wireless white boards, wireless computers and with assignments on the cell phones. Wi Fi routers and wireless electronics in the classroom bring this radiation in much closer proximity to students and levels can be higher than near cell towers. The increase in RF exposure in children is a huge concern with cell towers adding to RF cumulative exposures. Schools in Germany, Austria and France as well as many private schools in the U.S. have gone back to hardwired connections for health reasons and to reduce exposure.
Cell Towers Banned in the Los Angeles Unified School District and Removed in Chatsworth
The Los Angeles City Board of Education banned cell towers on schools in 2000, citing health and safety concerns of the students. The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD Resolution states:
Whereas, Recent studies suggest there is evidence that radio-frequency radiation may produce “health effects” at “very low field” intensities;
Whereas, The scientific community and most health officials agree that more research is needed to provide a definitive answer as to the effects of extremely low frequency electromagnetic and radio- frequency radiation on our health and recommend the prudent avoidance of equipment which generates non-ionizing radiation; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, further, That the Board of Education oppose the future placement of cellular telecommunications towers on or immediately adjacent to school property currently owned by the District until appropriate regulatory standards are adopted.
In Chatsworth, on Human Rights Day, parents protested the reinstallation of a cell tower on their local school and occupied the field until the mast was removed. Angry parents took a stand and were ready to camp out on the cell tower site. The school governing board and principal were contacted and according to the report some were not aware of the reinstallation. Parents watched and waited as heavy machinery slowly lowered the mast and drove it away.
Cell Towers and the Telecommunications Act
Cell towers are regulated by the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA). Schools may ban cell towers however municipalities may not according to the TCA. The law states that a cell tower cannot be denied on the basis of health in Section 704 as follows, “`(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”
The Collaborative for High Performing Schools
The Collaborative for High Performing Schools developed criteria and policies for schools to improve student performance through improved building design. This includes Best Practices for Low EMF which was adopted in 2014. This well researched and well written policy includes recommendations to reduce wireless radiofrequency radiation in schools as follows:
Provide wired Local Area Networks (LAN) throughout the school
Disable wireless transmitters on all Wi Fi enabled devices
Laptops and notebooks have ethernet port and switch to disable wireless
Keep computers and tablets away from the body
Hardwire all phones
Prohibit cell phones and other personal wireless devices in the classroom
Prohibit cell phone towers and base stations on school buildings or property
Run conduits for future fiberoptic connections
California Brain Tumor Association Agrees with Cell Tower Removal
Ellie Marks, Founder and Executive Director of the California Brain Tumor Association, agrees with the decision to move the cell tower away from the school. She states, “Our reading of the situation is that science has established enough proof of harm that regulations should be updated now and appropriate warnings issued. The “jury” actually is back and it has given its guilty verdict.” She feels the tower “should be turned off for now even before it is moved, to protect the students, teachers, staff and administrators.” Adding a ban on further cell towers within the school district, as the LAUSD has done, seems prudent as well.
PST Cell Towers Health Effects Scientific Literature- https://mdsafetech.org/cell-tower-health-effects/
PST Cellular Mechanisms of RFR Oxidation- https://mdsafetech.org/cellular-mechanisms-oxidation/
PST Cancer and Radiofrequency Radiation– https://mdsafetech.org/cancer/
PST NTP Study on Cell Phones and Cancer- https://mdsafetech.org/ntp-study-2016/
PST Wi Fi in Schools- https://mdsafetech.org/wi-fi-in-schools-2/
PST Military and Government Reports- https://mdsafetech.org/science/military-studies-and-compendiums/
Safer EMR Cell Tower Health Effects- https://www.saferemr.com/2015/04/cell-tower-health-effects.html
Environmental Health Trust Wi-Fi in Schools, Health Risks and Solutions. https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/wifi-in-schools/
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Physicians for Safe Technology, 25 Mar 2019|
|Oregon bill targets potential health risks of electronics|
|USA||Created: 26 Mar 2019|
A bill introduced in the Oregon Senate would require the Department of Education and the Oregon Health Authority to review studies on the potential health risks of exposure to radiation from electronic devices in classrooms.
SB 283 focuses on microwave radiation emitted from electronic devices like Wi-Fi routers, computers and cellphones.
The bill calls for the Department of Education and the Oregon Health Authority to review scientific studies about the effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation and create a strategic plan for safety based on their research. It would also require schools to “prepare a statement that discloses the potential health risks of wireless network technology” and distribute them in public and private elementary and secondary schools in the state.
But what exactly is radiofrequency radiation from electronics?
Davison Soper, a physics professor at the University of Oregon, explained that it sounds scarier than it is. “Radiation is an unfortunate word,” he said.
According to the FDA, the electromagnetic spectrum is a measurement of waves of energy and how they move. The American Cancer Society’s website says High-energy radiation is radiation that can damage DNA and cause cancer and is called “ionizing radiation.” X-rays and gamma rays are examples of ionizing radiation. Non-ionizing radiation is not powerful enough to affect DNA. Visible light is a form of non-ionizing radiation.
The radiation in question is radiofrequency radiation, which is a non-ionizing form of radiation. It occurs naturally in space and on Earth and through man-made sources like TV, cell phone signals and Wi-Fi signals. It’s also used to heat food in microwave ovens.
Soper said because RF radiation waves cannot affect DNA and can only cause cells to vibrate or heat up, it is unclear how they could cause cancer. He noted the amount of radiation from electronic devices is highest when holding a cellphone to your head. The radiation is much greater when a cellphone is broadcasting a signal — like during a call — and because it cannot travel far, radiation is reduced greatly by talking on speakerphone or using a hands-free device.
The National Toxicology Program released a study in November of 2018 that showed a link between RF radiation and cancer.
However, the study exposed rats and mice to much higher levels of RF radiation than humans would experience, and the results were still mixed. Only male rats had an increase in cancerous tumors, and their lifespans were actually longer than rats that had not been exposed.
The American Cancer Society’s website refers to this study and states, “Some aspects of this study make it hard to know what these results might mean for people, but the results add evidence to the idea that RF radiation might potentially impact human health.”
The International Agency for Research on Cancer lists RF radiation — next to aloe extract and pickled vegetables — as “possibly carcinogenic (cancer-causing) to humans.” The American Cancer Society’s website is also inconclusive on the possible link between cellphones and cancer, saying, “Although some studies have shown a possible link, many others have not.”
See complete story in Monday's Observer
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: La Grande Observer, Francisca Benitez, 25 Mar 2019|
|Earth Matters: A lesson in wireless radiation|
|USA||Created: 20 Mar 2019|
For many of us, the word “radiation” conjures up images of nuclear power plants, medical X-rays or even the iconic yellow-and-black warning signs that identified air-raid shelters back in the 1960s. It’s a scary word – one that we’ve all been taught means inherent danger.
And so it’s somewhat surprising that we are so accepting of radiation when it comes to the wireless devices that permeate our modern lives.
All of our mobile phones emit some level of radiation (radio frequency microwave radiation), as do wireless utility meters, wireless baby monitors, tablets, laptops and, of course, the ubiquitous wireless routers and antennas that send and receive the signals that tether us to the digital world.
For more than three decades, our government agencies have maintained that the radiation from all these wireless devices is completely harmless. It’s non-ionizing radiation, they say, incapable of having any effect on us other than a potential thermal effect – the burning of our skin if we get too close to a powerful antenna.
In fact, our current federal human exposure guidelines, established in 1996, are based on research conducted in the 1980s on such thermal effects. They are not at all relevant to today’s near-constant exposures in our homes, our schools, places of business and all means of transportation, nor do they recognize the robust and growing body of research on wireless radiation.
Back in the 1960s, the U.S. and Russia were both conducting extensive experiments on the health impacts of wireless microwave radiation on military personnel, and what they found (and documented) was worrisome. These studies, some classified until just recently, were among the first to show neurological and cognitive harm.
More than 50 years later, we have thousands of independent, peer-reviewed scientific studies documenting biological harm from exposure to RF microwave radiation, even at levels far below those long-outdated government standards.
One example is a recent 10-year, $30-million-dollar study by the National Toxicology Program of our National Institutes of Health that corroborated what hundreds of other studies have shown: clear evidence that long-term exposure to wireless radiation increases the risk of several cancers, particularly malignancies of the heart, brain and adrenal gland.
Unless you are looking for it, this information has been well hidden from the American public. And so, we have experienced the unprecedented growth of the telecoms, including the expansion of wireless technology into schools, where even our very youngest children are being exposed for hours and hours to RF microwave radiation in their classrooms every day.
This is a very, very inconvenient situation for educators and parents alike.
Over the past decade, the tech industry has been very generous in helping to equip American classrooms with routers, laptops, tablets and software, all dependent on wireless technology. It’s been a national effort, making sure our kids have the tools and skills they need to compete in the world.
There is nothing wrong with technology in schools. The internet offers students a vast resource of potential enrichment and learning.
Software programs can reinforce concepts, test skills and provide valuable feedback to teachers about a student’s progress. And besides, many modern businesses depend on technology to function, and their future employees need to understand how to make that technology work.
But what is the long-term impact for a student sitting in a classroom with a powerful router and twenty-five tablets or laptops all transmitting and receiving data (and emitting radiation) several hours each day?
One thing we know from the research: most children are unlikely to suffer immediate symptoms of exposure, although some will experience headaches, nausea, dizziness, confusion or “mental fog.”
But the fact that children in school classrooms are not exhibiting overt signs of serious illness should not be interpreted as a sign that everything is OK. More serious long-term illness can take years to manifest itself, by which time the child has long since left the classroom where the problem may have had its origins.
The alarming fact is that our school classrooms are some of the “hottest” hot spots for wireless radiation and we need to make some adjustments in our approach to technology in the educational setting.
Ethernet connections, which used to be the way computers in school classrooms were connected, are generally faster, more secure, and while perhaps not as convenient as wireless tablets and laptops, come with no health risks whatsoever.
We need to re-wire our classrooms, and I am not alone when it comes to this conclusion – the teachers union in New York, NYSUT, created a resolution in 2017 on the hazards of wireless radiation emission, promoting hard wired computers and a long list of best practices to reduce exposures.
It’s hard, really hard, to step back from this technology. It’s fun, it’s trendy, kids and parents love it.
Perhaps it’s because people don’t know that their devices are emitting harmful radiation? Like DDT, asbestos, tobacco, hormone replacement therapy and Vioxx, the science does eventually catch up!
We have a huge responsibility to our children and everyone else’s children, to do what we can to protect them from harm of all kinds, including RF microwave radiation in school classrooms. And right now, some parents in our local schools are struggling with whether to allow their kids to continue going to school and who never imagined that they would be considering homeschooling as an option.
The wireless classroom probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but now that we know its potential impact on our children’s health, it’s time to find the safest way to bring technology into our classrooms.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: The Island Now, 19 Mar 2019|
|Page 1 of 176  Next› Last»|