News for USA

 Page 1 of 166   Next›  Last» 

Professor of Medicine open letter against 5G rollout
USA Created: 20 Aug 2017
Beatrice Alexandra Golomb, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine, UC San Diego School of Medicine.

August 18, 2017,

To whom it may concern,

I urge in the strongest terms that you vigorously oppose California SB 649.

If this bill passes, many people will suffer greatly, and needlessly, as a direct result. This sounds like hyperbole. It is not.

My research group at UC San Diego alone has received hundreds of communications from people who have developed serious health problems from electromagnetic radiation, following introduction of new technologies. Others with whom I am in communication, have independently received hundreds of similar reports. Most likely these are a tip of an iceberg of tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of affected person. As each new technology leading to further exposure to electromagnetic radiation is introduced – and particularly introduced in a fashion that prevents vulnerable individuals from avoiding it – a new group become sensitized to health effects. This is particularly true for pulsed signals in the radiowave and microwave portion of the spectrum, the type for which the proposed bill SB 640 will bypass local control.

Mechanisms by which health effects are exerted have been shown to include oxidative stress (the type of injury against which antioxidants protect ,see optional section below), damage to mitochondria (the energy producing parts of cells), damage to cell membranes [1], [21], and via these mechanisms, an impaired “blood brain barrier” [3-5] (the blood brain barrier defends the brain against introduction of foreign substances and toxins; additionally, disruption can lead to brain edema [6]), constriction of blood vessels and impaired blood flow to the brain [7], and triggering of autoimmune reactions [8, 9]. Following a large exposure, that depresses antioxidant defenses, magnifying vulnerability to future exposures, some persons no longer tolerate many other forms and intensities of electromagnetic radiation that previously caused them no problem, and that currently cause others no problem. But this group deserves – nay needs -- the right to be able to avoid these exposures.
Affected individuals not only experience “symptoms” that “merely” cause them distress and suffering, when they are exposed – symptoms like headaches [10, 11], ringing ears [10, 11] and chest pain [10] from impaired blood flow, heart rhythm abnormalities [10, 11], and inability to sleep [10, 11]. These symptoms arise from physiological injury. Moreover, many experience significant health problems that can include seizures11, heart failure, hearing loss [12-14] and severe cognitive impairment [11, 15]. The mechanisms involved are those also involved in development and progression of neurodegenerative conditions including Alzheimer’s disease [16].

*SNIP* Read the entire letter via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Beatrice Alexandra Golomb, 18 Aug 2017

Where have all the insects gone?
USA Created: 15 Aug 2017
Entomologists call it the windshield phenomenon - "If you talk to people, they have a gut feeling - They remember how insects used to smash on your windscreen," says Wolfgang Wägele, director of the Leibniz Institute for Animal Biodiversity in Bonn, Germany. Today, drivers spend less time scraping and scrubbing. "I'm a very data-driven person," says Scott Black, executive director of the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation in Portland, Oregon. "But it is a visceral reaction when you realize you don't see that mess anymore."

Some people argue that cars today are more aerodynamic and therefore less deadly to insects. But Black says his pride and joy as a teenager in Nebraska was his 1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1—with some pretty sleek lines. "I used to have to wash my car all the time. It was always covered with insects." Lately, Martin Sorg, an entomologist here, has seen the opposite: "I drive a Land Rover, with the aerodynamics of a refrigerator, and these days it stays clean."

Though observations about splattered bugs aren't scientific, few reliable data exist on the fate of important insect species. Scientists have tracked alarming declines in domesticated honey bees, monarch butterflies, and lightning bugs. But few have paid attention to the moths, hover flies, beetles, and countless other insects that buzz and flitter through the warm months. "We have a pretty good track record of ignoring most noncharismatic species," which most insects are, says Joe Nocera, an ecologist at the University of New Brunswick in Canada.

Of the scant records that do exist, many come from amateur naturalists, whether butterfly collectors or bird watchers. Now, a new set of long-term data is coming to light, this time from a dedicated group of mostly amateur entomologists who have tracked insect abundance at more than 100 nature reserves in western Europe since the 1980s.

Over that time the group, the Krefeld Entomological Society, has seen the yearly insect catches fluctuate, as expected. But in 2013 they spotted something alarming. When they returned to one of their earliest trapping sites from 1989, the total mass of their catch had fallen by nearly 80%. Perhaps it was a particularly bad year, they thought, so they set up the traps again in 2014. The numbers were just as low. Through more direct comparisons, the group—which had preserved thousands of samples over 3 decades—found dramatic declines across more than a dozen other sites.

*SNIP* Read the entire article via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Science, Gretchen Vogel, 10 May 2017

Cancer Expert Declares Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation as Carcinogenic to Humans
USA Created: 15 Aug 2017
An expert cancer researcher and advisor to the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO/IARC) has issued his scientific opinion that radiofrequency (RF) radiation from any source – such as the signals emitted by cell phones, other wireless and cordless and sensor devices, and wireless networks – fully meets criteria to be classified as a “Group 1 carcinogenic to humans” agent, based on scientific evidence associating RF exposure to cancer development and cancer promotion.

“The evidence indicating wireless is carcinogenic has increased and can no longer be ignored,” stated Dr. Anthony B. Miller at a July 31, 2017 lecture in Jackson Hole, Wyoming sponsored by the Environmental Health Trust where international experts presented the best available science on cell phone and wireless radiation. In 2011, WHO/IARC classified RF radiation from any source as a “Group 2B possibly carcinogenic to human” agent. Miller believes the evidence published since 2011 fulfills the requirements to re-classify RF radiation as a “Group 1 carcinogenic to humans” agent.

Miller explained that the basis for his opinion includes recent scientific publications which include the 2017 re-analysis of data from the Interphone study, the 2014 French National CERENAT Study, several new publications on Swedish cancer data, and the 2016 results of the National Toxicology Program.

Dr. Anthony B. Miller is a physician epidemiologist who specializes in cancer etiology, prevention, and screening. Miller is Professor Emeritus at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health of the University of Toronto and Senior Medical Advisor to the Environmental Health Trust. He has been a longtime advisor to the World Health Organization (WHO) and was Senior Epidemiologist for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). He served as Director of the Epidemiology Unit of the National Cancer Institute of Canada, Chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics at the University of Toronto, Head of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology at the German Cancer Research Centre, and Consultant to the Division of Cancer Prevention of the U.S. National Cancer Institute. He has performed research about electromagnetic fields and cancer and has served on many committees assessing carcinogenicity of various exposures. Miller was visiting Senior Scientist in the IARC Monographs programme as a reviewer to the scientific literature supporting designation of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF) as a Group 2B possible carcinogen in 2011.

Other experts agree that the increased evidence now establishes RF radiation as a human carcinogen. For example, researchers Dr. Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg have published several epidemiological studies that found increased brain cancer associated with long-term cell phone use and conclude that “RF radiation should be regarded as a human carcinogen causing glioma.” In addition, published epidemiological research has also found persons diagnosed with brain cancer had decreased survival rates associated with higher wireless phone use.

In response to skeptics who claim “There is no evidence,” researchers point to published research that has consistently found increased cancer risk in well-designed case control studies that have looked at persons who used cell phones for more than ten years.

The July 31, 2017 panel presentation included international experts. Dr. Annie Sasco presented the WHO/IARC process used to classify carcinogenic agents. Dr. Devra Davis presented research finding wireless radiation results in sperm damage and alters brain development. Dr. Moe Mellion presented Dr. Iris Udasin’s clinical cases of World Trade Center first responders who developed brain cancer after combined environmental exposures to chemical toxins and wireless radiation. Theodora Scarato, MSW presented policies enacted by governments worldwide to reduce RF radiation exposures. Dr. Marc Arazi presented data released by the cell phone radiation test program of the Government of France, which found that when cell phones are tested in body contact positions, RF radiation exposure exceeds regulatory limits. Environmental Health Trust plans to post all lectures and videos from the July 31, 2017 presentation online.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Environmental Health Trust, 15 Aug 2017

2017 edition of Take Back Your Power free viewing till 11 Aug.
USA Created: 6 Aug 2017
Must-See Documentary Reveals Dangers of Smart Meters.

By Dr. Mercola:

While largely unknown and rarely discussed, there's evidence to suggest a significant percentage of the diseases we now face is related to electromagnetic interference (EMI), so-called "dirty electricity," and microwave radiation from cellphones, routers, portable phones, smart meters and more. In a nutshell, these kinds of exposures impact your biology, specifically your mitochondrial function, which we've now come to appreciate is at the heart of virtually all chronic disease.

*SNIP* Read the article and watch the video via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Mercola, 05 Aug 2017

A Coming Storm For Wireless?
USA Created: 4 Aug 2017
Increased RF injuries may result from the proliferation of antennas to support expanding wireless activity.

As workers and the medical community begin to better understand those RF injuries, the wireless industry could face increased RF safety awareness issues.

Insurers no longer provide RF exposure coverage, so wireless providers may find property owners less willing to renew existing leases, or to lease space for antennas.

An RF safety protocol could help protect workers and the financial interests of the wireless ecosystem.

Jobsite hazards, both seen and unseen, exist everywhere in our nation. All but a few of these safety challenges can be mitigated when corporations or industries decide to address them properly. Imagine an enterprise sector that utilizes a known human hazard and knowingly turns a blind eye to the health and safety of third party workers. Yet, this is exactly the situation surrounding radio frequency (RF) radiation within the wireless industry. Wireless carriers have long hidden behind the veil of federal compliance to avoid implementing a meaningful RF safety solution.

To date, the wireless industry has managed to stay relatively unscathed financially from injuries related to RF radiation. This is largely due to the medical community’s ignorance of the effects of RF injuries, either cognitive or physical. If experts in the medical community have no understanding of RF radiation, how can a worker realize they have been injured when RF radiation is invisible, odorless, and tasteless? Workers have no way of connecting their overexposure incident with the manifestation of symptoms, which may not arise immediately.

An Invisible Threat with Detrimental Impacts

The risk of RF radiation overexposure from transmitting antennas has long been recognized as a human health hazard and is identified as such by the FCC. RF radiation hazards from transmitting antennas can have thermal or cognitive/psychological injuries. Thermal injuries result in heating of tissue. Cognitive injuries manifest as memory loss, mood disorders, sleep disorders, and impaired or diminished cognitive function.

Global Insurers Withdraw from RF Exposure Coverage

In 2013, AM Best, the leading insurance rating agency, estimated that 250,000 workers are overexposed to radiation annually at wireless antenna sites. Since then, global insurers have chosen to exclude RF coverage from their policies. The last global insurer to exit the RF exposure market was Lloyd's of London in 2015. The ramifications of insurance firms excluding RF coverage are considerable. Without insurance coverage, wireless providers may find property owners less willing to lease space for antennas and current property owners may be less willing to renew existing leases. Without adequate insurance, the risk to the property owners far outweighs the lease revenue they receive. A single uninsured RF injury claim can wipe out years of lease revenue and expose the property owner to expensive litigation costs.

In Harm’s Way

Historically, antennas have been placed at inaccessible, remote, or fenced locations to prevent accidental RF exposure. However, as the demand for better service has increased, antennas have continued to encroach into urban and residential areas. Wireless carriers now install antennas in the sides of buildings, on rooftops, or in faux-chimneys, many of which are disguised to the untrained eye. As such, a painter, roofer, or other contractor performing routine maintenance on the building is placed in immediate danger due to close proximity to transmitting antennas while remaining unaware of any potential hazard.

The Unaware Medical Community

The medical community is ill-prepared to handle RF overexposure cases since physicians are neither educated nor trained to recognize the symptoms of RF radiation overexposure. Furthermore, they lack the knowledge to treat overexposure injuries. RF overexposure injuries resemble a variety of other ailments and therefore are commonly misdiagnosed. To the insurance industry, these injuries are classified as “Incurred but Not Reported” and are a significant factor in their decision to exclude RF exposure coverage.

Preventing “The Next Asbestos”

Through calculated tactics, legal actions, and lobbying, the wireless carriers continue the false narrative that there are no injuries or risks to unsuspecting workers near RF transmitting antennas. As workers and the medical community begin to recognize RF injuries, claims will accumulate as the plaintiff’s bar becomes involved, and third-party litigation multiplies.

Fortunately, the industry still has time to address this issue responsibly by adopting a comprehensive RF safety protocol which will protect workers and the financial interests of the wireless ecosystem – including the major players: AT&T (NYSE:T), Verizon (NYSE:VZ), T-Mobile (NASDAQ:TMUS), and Sprint (NYSE:S).
Click here to view the source article.
Source: TalkMarkets, Gloria Vogel, 27 Jul 2017

Interview with Dr. William Rea, world expert on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
USA Created: 22 Jul 2017
Meet Doctor William Rea, founder of the Environmental Health Center in Dallas - Originally a cardiac surgeon, he founded the leading environmental medicine clinic in the US in 1978. Here you will hear this thoughts on risks from electromagnetic fields and how he and his colleagues work to lower electrosensitivity in patients.

Watch the interview here: https://vimeo.com/225283097

The Environmental Health Center approach includes neutralizing sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, but also neutralizing sensitivities to molds, foods and more. They use a generator to first assess what frequencies one has a reaction to, conducted in a shielded room, and then neutralize them using common immunology approaches. And they use oxygen therapies, as wireless technologies cause constriction of the tiny blood vessels and they cannot extract oxygen well. These and other approaches used at EHC can help to lower sensitivity, at least for now. But Dr.Rea calls this the epidemic of the 21st century, as the body has already shown it cannot handle frequencies well, and yet we are adding even more wireless technologies to our environment all the time.

Dr. Rea also says the effects of the frequencies work in synergy with other factors, like Glyphosate, where there is a coherence phenomenon occurring, exacerbating the effects and symptoms.

Dr. Rea is especially concerned about the cognitive effects from wireless technologies, such as short and long-term memory impairment, balance problems and confusion. He is concerned for society given the reductions in children’s IQ shown in one study where a school was exposed to a cell tower—the IQ went down 5 points. If this happened each year for the 6 years of grade school, he wonders, “How could this be worse? This does not bode well for the future of the whole world.”

Creating safe environments is of paramount concern for the large and growing population that Dr. Rea’s clinic serves. Thank you, Dr.Rea, for being on the forefront of environmental medicine.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Manhattan Neighbors.org, 12 Jul 2017

Senator McCain diagnosed with Glioblastoma
USA Created: 21 Jul 2017
At the request of Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and his family, Mayo Clinic released the following statement today:.

“On Friday, July 14, Sen. John McCain underwent a procedure to remove a blood clot from above his left eye at Mayo Clinic Hospital in Phoenix. Subsequent tissue pathology revealed that a primary brain tumor known as a glioblastoma was associated with the blood clot.

Related news:
Jul 2017, USA: Verizon and AT&T Provided Cell Towers for Senator McCain's Ranch (2008)
Jun 2016, Sweden: BioInitiative on NTP study: Cell Phone Radiation Study Confirms Cancer Risk

“Scanning done since the procedure (a minimally invasive craniotomy with an eyebrow incision) shows that the tissue of concern was completely resected by imaging criteria.

“The Senator and his family are reviewing further treatment options with his Mayo Clinic care team. Treatment options may include a combination of chemotherapy and radiation.

“The Senator’s doctors say he is recovering from his surgery ‘amazingly well’ and his underlying health is excellent.”

The office of Senator John McCain also released the following statement:

“Senator McCain appreciates the outpouring of support he has received over the last few days. He is in good spirits as he continues to recover at home with his family in Arizona. He is grateful to the doctors and staff at Mayo Clinic for their outstanding care, and is confident that any future treatment will be effective. Further consultations with Senator McCain's Mayo Clinic care team will indicate when he will return to the United States Senate.”

Please direct all media inquiries to Julie Tarallo at julie_tarallo@mccain.senate.gov.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: McCain Press Office, 20 Jul 2017

Verizon and AT&T Provided Cell Towers for Senator McCain's Ranch (2008)
USA Created: 21 Jul 2017
Early in 2007, just as her husband launched his presidential bid, Cindy McCain sought to resolve an old problem - the lack of cellphone coverage on her remote 15-acre ranch near Sedona, Ariz., nestled deep in a tree-lined canyon called Hidden Valley.

Over the past year, she offered land for a permanent cell tower, and Verizon Wireless embarked on an expensive public process to meet her needs, hiring contractors and seeking county land-use permits.

Verizon ultimately abandoned its effort to install a permanent tower in August. Company spokesman Jeffrey Nelson said the project would be "an inappropriate way" to build its network. "It doesn't make business sense for us to do that," he added.

Instead, Verizon delivered a portable tower known as a "cell site on wheels" - free of charge - to the McCain property in June, after the Secret Service began inquiring about improving coverage in the area. Such devices are used for providing temporary capacity where coverage is lacking or has been knocked out, in circumstances ranging from the Super Bowl to hurricanes.

In July, AT&T followed suit, wheeling in a portable tower for free to match Verizon's offer. "This is an unusual situation," AT&T spokeswoman Claudia B. Jones said. "You can't have a presidential nominee in an area where there is not cell coverage."

Ethics lawyers said Cindy McCain's dealings with the wireless companies stand out because her husband is a senior member of the Senate commerce committee, which oversees the Federal Communications Commission and the telecommunications industry. He has been a leading advocate for industry-backed legislation, fighting regulations and taxes on telecommunication services.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his campaign have close ties to Verizon and AT&T. Five campaign officials, including manager Rick Davis, have worked as lobbyists for Verizon. Former McCain staff member Robert Fisher is an in-house lobbyist for Verizon and is volunteering for the campaign. Fisher, Verizon chief executive Ivan G. Seidenberg and company lobbyists have raised more than $1.3 million for McCain's presidential effort, and Verizon employees are among the top 20 corporate donors over McCain's political career, giving his campaigns more than $155,000.

McCain's Senate chief of staff Mark Buse, senior strategist Charles R. Black Jr. and several other campaign staff members have registered as AT&T lobbyists in the past. AT&T Executive Vice President Timothy McKone and AT&T lobbyists have raised more than $2.3 million for McCain. AT&T employees have donated more than $325,000 to the Republican's campaigns, putting the company in the No. 3 spot for career donations to McCain, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

"It raises the aura of special consideration for somebody because he is a member of the Senate," said Stanley Brand, a former House counsel for Democrats and an ethics lawyer who represents politicians in both parties.

McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said that the senator is not a regulator and that Cindy McCain received no favors from Verizon or AT&T.

"Mrs. McCain's staff went through the Web site as any member of the general public would - no string-pulling, no phone calls, no involvement of Senate staff," Rogers said. "Just because she is married to a senator doesn't mean she forfeits her right to ask for cell service as any other Verizon customer can."

Verizon spokesman Nelson said. "I am not going to talk about individual customers and their requests."

Verizon navigated a lengthy county regulatory process that hit a snag on environmental concerns (see document). The request ultimately prevailed when a contractor for the company invoked the Secret Service after John McCain secured the Republican nomination.

After checking with Verizon and the McCain campaign, Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren said an e-mail sent in May by the service's technology manager could be perceived as a request for temporary coverage under the service's contract with Verizon.

"This was something that was being addressed before we were out there," Zahren said. The agency could have made do with existing cell coverage in the area, he said, because it uses multiple layers of communication, including a secure land radio network. Zahren said the contractor was not authorized to invoke the Secret Service in dealings with the county.

Documents that The Washington Post obtained from Arizona's Yavapai County under state public records law show how Verizon hired contractors to put a tower on the property (see letter). At that point, many counted McCain out of the race.

On Sept. 18, 2007, a Mesa, Ariz., contractor working for Verizon surveyed the McCain property. Another contractor drafted blueprints (see document - note large file size) calling for moving a utility shed and installing a 40-foot tower with two antennas and a microwave dish, surrounded by a six-foot wooden fence.

Construction costs would be $22,000, records show. Industry specialists said the figure probably only covers the tower and fence because the antennas, the dish and power source would run the cost into the six figures. On Dec. 4, Cindy McCain signed a letter (see document) authorizing Verizon Wireless to act on her behalf to seek county land-use permits.

Coverage maps submitted by Verizon to the county show that the tower would fill gaps in unpopulated parts of Coconino National Forest and on about 20 parcels of land, including a handful of residences, and two small businesses open only by appointment. "We are not big cell phone users," said neighbor Linda Kappel, who runs a small gift shop.

"It is a fairly sparsely populated in that pocket along Oak Creek," said Kathy Houchin, the Yavapai County permitting manager.

Three telecommunications specialists consulted by The Post said the proposed site covers so few users that it is unlikely to generate enough traffic to justify the investment. Robb Alarcon, an industry specialist who helps plan tower placement, said the proposed location appeared to be a "strategic build," free-of-charge coverage to high-priority customers. A former Verizon executive vice president, who asked not to be named because he worked for the company, agreed with Alarcon, saying, "It was a VIP kind of thing."

Verizon spokesman Nelson declined to comment when asked if this had been considered to be a "strategic build."

Cindy McCain signed a contract with Verizon on May 6 (see document), granting free use of her property for a year in exchange for "the benefits of enhanced wireless communications arising from operation of the Facility."

Over Memorial Day, McCain hosted potential vice presidential running mates at the ranch, but the area still lacked coverage. Richard Klenner, then the wireless communications chief of the Secret Service, which had recently started providing protection, sent an e-mail to Verizon. "Is there any way of speeding up the process?" he asked, adding that he wanted Verizon to "explore every possible means of providing an alternative cellular or data communications source in the referenced area and provide any short-term implementation of any type as a solution in the interim."

Researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Washington Post, JAMES V. GRIMALDI, 15 Sep 2008

We Are All Lab Rats in a Massive Cell Phone Study
USA Created: 14 Jul 2017
The National Toxicology Program is part of the US Department of Health and Human Services - Formed in the 1970s, the program's stated mission is to identify chemicals or other agents that could pose a threat to public health.

The NTP is currently conducting a multi-year, multi-phase, $25-million rodent study looking into health harms associated with the kinds of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted by your phone. In a surprise move last year, the NTP chose to publish "partial findings" after concluding the first phase of its study. In its summary of those findings, the report states: "These studies found low incidences of malignant gliomas in the brain and schwannomas in the heart of male rats exposed to RFR of the two types . . . currently used in US wireless networks."

Speaking to the media after his program published its report, NTP associate director John Bucher said, "Overall we feel that the tumors are, in fact, likely to be related to the [RFR] exposures." Bucher had to clarify this point several times because, after soliciting expert comment on his program's findings, some reviewers took issue with the study's design and conclusions.

"The results of our studies are far from definitive," he made a point of saying. But, he added, there have been a lot of "internal discussions" about the study within the NTP, and "70 to 80 percent of the people that look at this study feel that there is a significant association between radiofrequency radiation and the tumors."

At that time, the media coverage of the NTP's report tended to adopt one of two narratives: that the findings were confirmation wireless technologies are dangerous, or that the findings were flawed and not applicable to the way people use their devices.

Recalling all this a year later, Bucher says, "People took very different things from the same findings and the same call." He says this illustrates how strong the "biases" are when it comes to cell phones and human health, and that a lot of outlets covering the NTP's findings missed the point.

So what is the point? Many people in the "cell phones can't hurt you" camp have long argued that, because the kind of radiation a phone emits doesn't heat tissues or cells, there's no biological mechanism by which that radiation could cause you harm. Bucher says his group's findings, if they're validated with follow-up research, would kneecap this argument. "We need a lot more information to understand any effects on human populations," he says. "We'll use these findings to put together research programs to follow up on this."

Basically, he and his colleagues are trying to determine if Colonel Mustard's wrench exists. If it does, it'll be up to others to figure out if that wrench is capable of bludgeoning someone—or in the case of cell phones, tens of millions of someones.

If it surprises and dismays you to hear that, no, experts didn't conduct all this research before allowing tech companies to fill your life with their awesomely powerful, helpful, hopelessly addictive wireless devices, you've got a legitimate gripe. "We're in the midst of a grand experiment that's being performed without our informed consent," says Allan Frey, a (mostly) retired neuroscientist who spent decades studying the ways radio waves and human biology interact.

"The way I got into microwave stuff," Frey says, "is I was looking at it as a potential tool for understanding how nervous systems works." Back in 1975, he published research that demonstrated certain forms of microwave radiation could "open up" gaps in the blood-brain barrier. "This barrier exists to keep heavy metals and things like that out of brain tissue," he says. "So opening that barrier could lead to all sorts of neurodegenerative and developmental problems."

Since his pioneering work, others in Europe and the US have substantiated many of Frey's findings and added to them evidence that electromagnetic radiation could theoretically damage DNA, sperm, and otherwise disrupt the body's internal workings in ways that could cause or contribute to diseases of both the mind and body. The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer looked at the evidence and chose, back in 2011, to classify radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a possible human carcinogen (note for context that there are 298 other things classified that way, and that this is a less-certain designation than the "probably carcinogenic" list, which includes the consumption of red meat and very hot liquids).

"The most compelling evidence of harm has to do with the brain and malignant and non-malignant tumors," says Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley. "But we have studies showing evidence of damage to reproductive health, neurodevelopmental disorders in offspring—particularly ADHD—liver damage, DNA damage."

Moskowitz says developing fetuses, newborns, and children may be most at risk, but most parents are oblivious and many school systems are moving ahead and installing powerful wireless networks and transmitters with little regulatory oversight, thanks in large part to the telecom industry's successful lobbying of the FCC and FDA. "We have radiofrequency safety standards that most of the independent scientific community thinks are meaningless, when we really need to be warning people about the risks and showing them how to protect themselves until we can do more research and adopt standards that are truly safe," he says. (If you want to dive into all of that, he thoroughly details all the latest research and regulatory issues on his blog.)

Frey backs up many of Moskowitz's claims. Frey also says the Cold War is partly to blame for having a chilling effect on honest scientific inquiry and study into the risks of radiofrequency radiation: "Back in the '60s and '70s and '80s, people had a lot of concern about radar and radiation, but the military needed to install radar towers for communication and to see incoming missiles and planes," he says. "So there was an organized, well-financed effort to block research funding and disprove or discredit any research showing that there may be biologic effects or harm from electromagnetic exposure."

The real tragedy, he says, is that there are almost certainly wireless frequencies and "modulations" that would allow us to keep all our gadgets without risk. "But in this country, the science on all this was not allowed to proceed in a normal fashion, and so we don't have an evidence basis for knowing what's safe and what's not," he says.

To be clear, many experts who have looked at the existing research don't think that there's reason to be concerned. "I think the scientific evidence showing a connection between electromagnetic radiation and tumors is weak or none," says Larry Junck, a neurooncologist at the University of Michigan. Junck points out that there hasn't been a surge in tumors or brain cancers since the advent and widespread adoption of wireless phones, and the studies he's looked at that suggest a risk tend to have "methodological flaws."

In the NTP's rat study mentioned above, for instance, experts pointed out that female rats exposed to cell phone radiation actually lived longer than female rats who were not exposed. "Yet no headlines blared that cell phones extend life," wrote Aaron Carroll, a professor at Indiana University's School of Medicine, on his blog. Other experts reacted similarly, as Fast Company noted after the findings were released.

That's not to say experts like Junck don't totally rule out the risk of harm. But, Junck adds, "of all the things we have to be concerned about as a society, I would not put this at the top of the list, especially since we don't have a demonstrated mechanism that could explain a connection [between cell phones and brain tumors]."

Frey says he hears this argument a lot. "I always say, well, we used aspirin for a hundred years before we understood why it took away pain," he says. "Just because we can't conceive of something with our current knowledge doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist."

On the question of whether we should now be seeing spikes in tumor and cancer rates if cell phones really were a problem, the NTP's Bucher says the "latency period"—or the time it takes for those types of health issues to emerge—depends on a lot of factors, but could be as long as 20 years—meaning it's too early to breathe easy.

"It's the nature of science and toxicology that we're always playing catch-up," he says. "We don't have a grasp of all the different modulations and frequencies and their effects, so we just need a lot more information to understand everything." As Frey said, it's all a grand experiment, and we're the lab rats.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Vice.com, Markham Heid, 07 Jul 2017

Letter: 5G legislation sounds like history of industry influence repeating itself
USA Created: 6 Jul 2017
Regarding “House bill could give faster 5G wireless networks green light” (5/31): I am a radiologist specializing for 30 years in MRI, which creates amazing pictures of the body using the non-thermal effects of radiofrequencies and electromagnetic fields. As a former member of the National Safety Committee for MRI and the Bioelectromagnetic Society, I investigated potential health effects and determined that there is no evidence for hazard from short-term exposures of patients in MRI to these frequencies and fields.

However, the same cannot be said for long-term exposure from 5G, as proposed on a massive scale with the HB310 bill. There is now scientific evidence for hazard from cellphones and 5G millimeter wave technology resulting in its classification as a 2B possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer due to increased risk of malignant brain tumors. Children are most sensitive to the effects of such radiation.

I’m afraid we are in danger of making a mistake with regard to millimeter wave long-term exposure safety. Children with brain tumors will not care if they can download videos faster. Scientific studies funded by industry are less likely to find evidence for hazard than those funded by public agencies. North Carolina is no stranger to the concept of such influence in its tobacco science legacy. Cigarette executives were aware of risks and covered them up, and I think there is reason to believe that the same holds true for this industry. Let’s make a responsible choice this time and evaluate the health implications of the H310 bill.

Larry Burk, MD, CEHP
Durham
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The News & Observer, Larry Burk, 30 Jun 2017

 Page 1 of 166   Next›  Last» 
 News item: