News for USA

«First  ‹Previous   Page 182 of 182 

Exposure standards for electromagnetic radiation do not adequately address current realities
USA Created: 3 Aug 2005
Cellphones, Radars, and Health

"We have more than enough experimental evidence to question the validity of formulating standards that take only thermal effects into account." Exposure standards for electromagnetic radiation do not adequately address current realities

Ten years ago, the only source of electromagnetic waves most of us encountered with any regularity was the microwave oven.
Today, we hold cellphones against our heads, walk past cellphone base stations in cities, cradle wireless personal digital assistants in our hands, and clip text-messaging devices and pagers to our belts. We are even starting to connect our computers, cellphones, and peripherals with various wireless schemes.
Yet amid this increasingly dense "electro-smog," we are still using the same outdated and inadequate standards to calculate our exposure to radio and microwaves.
These standards are based on conclusions drawn from many experiments in the decades after World War II. Few of those studies, however, were designed to study low-level, localized biological effects not linked to heat. But electromagnetic theory and decades of experiments clearly indicate that the electromagnetic fields of radio and microwaves can also affect cells mechanically, without producing significant amounts of heat.
These standards, formulated in the late 1980s by the American National Standards Institute, the IEEE, and others, are based on the assumption that if non-ionizing radiation affects living cells and tissue, it must do so by heating the tissue. The standards, known as IEEE/ANSI C95.1-1991, also calculate exposure over a person's entire body, rather than specific organs or the head and cheek (in the case of, say, exposure to a cellphone). These heat-based, whole-body standards are used to calculate maximum exposures permissible for people who work around radiation, such as soldiers or sailors who work around radars, or technicians who work on cellphone base stations. The standards are also used in the design of
antenna towers, to limit what passers-by are exposed to.
The possible link between radio and microwaves, which are forms of nonionizing radiation, and human health remains one of the most complex and controversial subjects in all of biophysics. I couldn't possibly review the vast literature on this topic in a short magazine article.
Nevertheless, there is growing scientific evidence that prolonged exposure to some kinds of radio waves does cause at least low-level changes in the movements, workings, and possibly structure of molecules and cells in living tissue. This evidence raises the possibility of health effects - ones against which our current exposure standards are not adequately protecting us.

"We have more than enough experimental evidence to question the validity of formulating standards that take only thermal effects into account."

The relevant physics starts with the fact that all living things absorb and scatter electromagnetic waves. As they do so, they convert, on a molecular level, the electromagnetic fields of the waves into mechanical forces. Our bodies are full of ions—in nerve endings, in cell nuclei, in muscles.
In addition, the body's most common molecules, including water, have an irregular distribution of charge, so that they are influenced by an electric field (or a magnetic field if the ions or molecules are moving).
Thus electromagnetic fields can physically move, reorient, or even alter molecules or ions—or their distributions—in the body.
They can affect the rate of chemical reactions and the ability of molecules to pass through a membrane. In addition, if charge acceleration occurs, perhaps as a result of radar pulses with extremely fast rise times, the tissue itself may reradiate or scatter this energy inside the human body, complicating and intensifying the radiation's effects.
Possible links between molecular or cellular effects and human health are controversial, but a number of experts are focusing their attention on the blood-brain barrier. This physiological complex, which includes as its primary line of defense the cellular lining of capillaries in the brain,
shields the brain and central nervous system from foreign and harmful substances.
The barrier also seems to control the concentrations of ions in cerebral tissue.
Radiation-caused movements or alterations of ions and molecules can be particularly vigorous when they are caused by electromagnetic pulses
that are sharp and intense. A case in point is the Air Force's early-warning radar, the Pave Paws system in Falmouth, Mass. In a 1994 paper, Richard Albanese, a researcher at Brooks Air Force Base (San Antonio, Texas), reported that ultrashort electromagnetic pulses, of the sort
emitted by Pave Paws and similar phased-array radars, may cause mechanical damage to tissue through what is called precursor radiation. The term describes the secondary bursts of radiation that occur inside living tissue when the tissue is hit by the radar pulses. This precursor radiation is a potential secondary source of tissue damage—and it is ignored in current exposure standards. "Until the issue of tissue damage mechanisms associated [with] pulses that cause precursors is fully studied,"
Albanese wrote in his 1994 publication, "the author recommends zero human exposure to such unique precursor and gendering pulses."
Another study made worldwide headlines little over a month ago, on 20 June. A team at Finland's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority
reported its discovery that mobile-phone-type radiation has an effect on hundreds of proteins found in lab-grown cells taken from human blood vessels. The leader of the study, Dariusz Leszczynski, refused to cite the results as proof of a connection to human health.
But he did hypothesize that one of the molecules affected, the so-called stress protein, hsp27, might be the key that opened gaps in the blood-brain barrier, letting harmful or at least foreign entities into the brain.
More supporting results come from Henry Lai, in the department of bioengineering at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Lai has documented biological effects caused by rates of radiation absorption at levels down to 0.001 W/kg of irradiated tissue and at power densities in the microwatt-per-centimeter range. These levels are significantly smaller than those permitted under current standards.
The effects include damage to DNA in cells, increases in calcium efflux in cells, and decreases in cell division after exposure.
We have more than enough solid experimental evidence to question the validity of formulating standards that take only thermal effects into account.
It would be irresponsible to continue using standards based on average, whole-body radiation exposures to laboratory animals, more especially because a great deal of tissue damage has been done long before a laboratory animal shows behavior changes or dies from thermal effects.
What next? We must revise our safety standards and set conservative new ones using all of the available results and information - not just the data that fits previously held assumptions. The telecommunications industry, which is in deep denial, needs to face reality.
Professional groups, such as the IEEE's Standards Association, must work with the U.S. government and international agencies to ensure that studies of long-term, low-level, nonthermal bioeffects are put in place. The U.S. Congress needs to recognize the urgency of these studies and not just defer to the telecommunications industry when creating or modifying legislation.
For many of us, cell telephones are an indispensable part of our lives and lifestyles. Cellphone towers now line our highways and dot our communities. There is no turning back now. But we have a right to expect standards that will truly protect our health and well-being.

Appendix:
"The US Institution of Electrical and Electronic Engineers is, like the UK IEE, a bastion of industry.
It is good to see the US folk allow someone to use their journal to speak out their concerns.
Dr Raymond Kasevich, founder of KAI Technologies, Inc. has 30 years of corporate research and development experience in electromagnetic science and engineering applications.
These applications cover a wide range of projects, from full-scale radiofrequency oil recovery and environmental remediation systems to medical catheter systems for microwave hyperthermia. Mr. Kasevich has 20 years of University teaching experience in Electrical Engineering. He holds more than 25 patents and has published numerous papers in professional journals. His education includes an ME degree from Yale University in 1963 with undergraduate studies in Electrical Engineering at Case Western Reserve University and the University of Hartford. He received a Ford Foundation Grant for Ph.D. studies at the University of Michigan while working part-time at the Radiation Laboratory in Ann Arbor on network synthesis problems and continued Ph.D. studies at MIT in the Department of Physics as a special graduate student.
Read this article! IEEE Spectrum Speak Out August, 2002. "
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Spectrum Online. By Raymond S. Kasevich, CS Medical Technologies LLC

NO, THEY DO NOT TARGET CHILDREN, DO THEY?
USA Created: 27 Jul 2005
Children’s Advocates Ask Congress to Investigate Marketing of Mobile Phones to Kids

WASHINGTON - July 26 - Privacy, consumer and children’s advocates sent letters today to key Members of Congress, asking them to investigate the marketing and sale of mobile phones to children, and their effects on children’s privacy, education, safety and health.

The letters were written and organized by Commercial Alert, and sent to all members of the commerce committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. The letter follows.

Dear _________:

On July 6th, the Walt Disney Internet Group and Sprint announced their intention to offer wireless telephone service to children 8-12 years of age.

This was just the latest in what is emerging as an industry trend. Earlier this year, Firefly Mobile enlisted 100,000 children for their mobile phone service. Enfora has announced plans to offer mobile phone service targeting children as young as six years of age. This fall, Wherify is planning to offer a “Wherifone” for children with built-in Global Positioning System (GPS) location tracking. In August, Mattel is expected to market Barbie-branded mobile phones. Hasbro is preparing its own mobile phone for children, too, called “Chat Now.”

The targeting of young children as the next growth market for the telecom industry is one of the worst ideas to appear in the American economy in a long time. Does anyone really believe that kids today lack sufficient distractions from their school work, that there are insufficient disruptions in the home, and that child predators and advertisers lack sufficient means of access to kids?

If the Disney Corporation and the others just wanted to give children a way to contact parents in emergencies, that would be one thing. The telecommunications companies – to parents at least –are playing up this angle. Telecommunications lobbyists in Washington will harp on it as well.

But despite the industry’s rhetoric, Disney and the telecommunications companies really want to use children as conduits to their parents’ wallets. And marketers want another way to bypass parents and speak directly to the nation’s children.

Already, marketers are leaping to send advertisements via mobile phones. For example, Advertising Age reported on July 11th that many corporations, including McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Timex, are moving “from small [mobile phone advertising] tests to all-out campaign[s].” Children already are bombarded with too much advertising. They don’t need more advertising through their mobile phones, whether it is telemarketing, text message marketing, adver-games, or any other type of commercial messages.

Before the telecommunications industry declares “open season” upon the children of this country, we urge you to investigate and make absolutely certain that the industry has answers to the following questions.

Child Predators. Will adults other than parents be able to contact children through these phones, without the permission of parents? What about sexual predators, convicted criminals, etc.?

Disclosure of Children’s Whereabouts. For mobile phones to work, telecommunications companies must know where their customers’ phones are. Will anyone other than the child’s parents, law enforcement officials and telecommunications companies be able to track the physical location of the child’s mobile phone?

Interruptions in School and Church. Will the mobile phones cause disruptions and distractions in church and school, or will they be designed not to function in such locations? The potential for disruption here affects not just the individual child, but every child in the group in question.

Runaway Billing. Will parents have absolute control over billing and charges, so that no charges can be incurred without the parents’ specific prior consent? This includes charges for regular and special services, 888 numbers, and the rest.

Children’s Health. Children are vulnerable in ways that adults are not, physically as well as emotionally. In January, the British National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) issued a report, titled “Mobile Phones and Health,” which warned about the possibility that mobile phones could cause benign tumors of the ear and brain. The NRPB recommended that parents not give mobile phones to children under eight years of age, that older children should limit their use of mobile phones, and that “the mobile phone industry should refrain from promoting the use of mobile phones by children.” Upon release of the report, NRPB Chairman Sir William Stewart said, “I don't think we can put our hands on our hearts and say mobile phones are safe.” He also said that “If there are risks, and we think there may be risks, then the people who are going to be most affected are children, and the younger the child, the greater the danger.” How has the U.S. mobile phone industry factored this warning into its service plans? Can it guarantee that children will suffer no adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones? If not, then why is it offering mobile phones to children? Is the industry willing to take full responsibility for the effects of its phones upon children’s health?

The move to put mobile phones into the hands of children as young as six years old is not a decision to take lightly. It opens up a plethora of problems, not just for the children with the phones but for schools, churches, families and classmates as well.

Now is the time to pause, investigate and consider. Once the phones are in classrooms, playrooms, and in children’s bedrooms, it will be too late. Already we read with grim regularity of children molested by predators who contacted them over the Internet. We read of children who cannot focus their own attention even for short times. We hope we will not now read about children abducted by adults who seduced them through mobile phones, and of school rooms that cannot function because of mobile phones that ring constantly, just because Congress did not stand up and act.

Sincerely,
Joan Almon, Coordinator, Alliance for Childhood
Michael Brody, MD, Chair, Television and Media Committee, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Brita Butler-Wall, PhD. Executive Director, Citizens' Campaign for Commercial-Free Schools
Angela Campbell, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
Raffi Cavoukian, D.Mus., D.Litt., founder of Child Honoring, singer, author, ecology advocate
Nathan Dungan, author, Prodigal Sons and Material Girls: How Not to Be Your Child's ATM
Leon Eisenberg, MD, Professor of Social Medicine Emeritus, Harvard Medical School
Henry A. Giroux, PhD, Waterbury Chair Professor in Secondary Education, College of Education, Pennsylvania State University; author, Stealing Innocence: Corporate Culture's War on Children
Susan Grant, Vice President, Public Policy, National Consumers League
Nicholas Johnson, Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Carden Johnston, MD, FAAP, FRCP, Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics, University of Alabama School of Medicine
Tim Kasser, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychology. Knox College; author, The High Price of Materialism
Jean Kilbourne, author, Can't Buy My Love: How Advertising Changes the Way We Think and Feel
Diane Levin, PhD, Professor of Education, Wheelock College; author, Remote Control Childhood?: Combating the Hazards of Media Culture
Susan Linn, EdD, Instructor in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School; Co-founder, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood; author, Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood
Robert W. McChesney, Research Professor, Institute of Communications Research, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Founder and President, Free Press; author, The Problem of the Media
Bob McCannon, Founder and Executive Director, New Mexico Media Literacy Project; Vice President & Co-founder, Action Coalition for Media Education
Ken McEldowney, Executive Director, Consumer Action
Jim Metrock, President, Obligation, Inc.
Ed Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG)
Mark Crispin Miller, PhD, Professor of Media Ecology, New York University
Diane M. Morrison, PhD, Professor & Associate Dean for Research, University of Washington School of Social Work
Peggy O'Mara, Editor and Publisher, Mothering Magazine
Alvin F. Poussaint, MD, Professor of Psychiatry and Faculty Associate Dean for Student Affairs, Harvard Medical School
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
Hugh Rank, University Professor Emeritus, Governors State University; author, Persuasion Analysis and The Pitch
Gary Ruskin, Executive Director, Commercial Alert
Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum
Juliet Schor, PhD, Professor of Sociology, Boston College; author, Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture
Remar Sutton, Founder, The Privacy Rights Now Coalition
Victor Strasburger, MD, Professor of Pediatrics, Chief, Division of Adolescent Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine; co-author, Children, Adolescents, & the Media
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: JULY 26, 2005
Click here to view the source article.
Source: CONTACT: Commercial Alert: Gary Ruskin (503) 235-8012

NO, THEY DO NOT TARGET CHILDREN, DO THEY?
USA Created: 18 Jul 2005
Children’s Advocates Ask Congress to Investigate Marketing of Mobile Phones to Kids

Privacy, consumer and children’s advocates sent letters today to key Members of Congress, asking them to investigate the marketing and sale of mobile phones to children, and their effects on children’s privacy, education, safety and health.
The letters were written and organized by Commercial Alert, and sent to all members of the commerce committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. The letter follows:

Dear _________:
On July 6th, the Walt Disney Internet Group and Sprint announced their intention to offer wireless telephone service to children 8-12 years of age.
This was just the latest in what is emerging as an industry trend. Earlier this year, Firefly Mobile enlisted 100,000 children for their mobile phone service. Enfora has announced plans to offer mobile phone service targeting children as young as six years of age. This fall, Wherify is planning to offer a “Wherifone” for children with built-in Global Positioning System (GPS) location tracking. In August, Mattel is expected to market Barbie-branded mobile phones. Hasbro is preparing its own mobile phone for children, too, called “Chat Now.”
The targeting of young children as the next growth market for the telecom industry is one of the worst ideas to appear in the American economy in a long time. Does anyone really believe that kids today lack sufficient distractions from their school work, that there are insufficient disruptions in the home, and that child predators and advertisers lack sufficient means of access to kids?
If the Disney Corporation and the others just wanted to give children a way to contact parents in emergencies, that would be one thing. The telecommunications companies – to parents at least –are playing up this angle. Telecommunications lobbyists in Washington will harp on it as well.
But despite the industry’s rhetoric, Disney and the telecommunications companies really want to use children as conduits to their parents’ wallets. And marketers want another way to bypass parents and speak directly to the nation’s children.
Already, marketers are leaping to send advertisements via mobile phones. For example, Advertising Age reported on July 11th that many corporations, including McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Timex, are moving “from small [mobile phone advertising] tests to all-out campaign[s].” Children already are bombarded with too much advertising. They don’t need more advertising through their mobile phones, whether it is telemarketing, text message marketing, adver-games, or any other type of commercial messages.
Before the telecommunications industry declares “open season” upon the children of this country, we urge you to investigate and make absolutely certain that the industry has answers to the following questions.
Child Predators. Will adults other than parents be able to contact children through these phones, without the permission of parents? What about sexual predators, convicted criminals, etc.?
Disclosure of Children’s Whereabouts. For mobile phones to work, telecommunications companies must know where their customers’ phones are. Will anyone other than the child’s parents, law enforcement officials and telecommunications companies be able to track the physical location of the child’s mobile phone?
Interruptions in School and Church. Will the mobile phones cause disruptions and distractions in church and school, or will they be designed not to function in such locations? The potential for disruption here affects not just the individual child, but every child in the group in question.
Runaway Billing. Will parents have absolute control over billing and charges, so that no charges can be incurred without the parents’ specific prior consent? This includes charges for regular and special services, 888 numbers, and the rest.
Children’s Health. Children are vulnerable in ways that adults are not, physically as well as emotionally. In January, the British National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) issued a report, titled “Mobile Phones and Health,” which warned about the possibility that mobile phones could cause benign tumors of the ear and brain. The NRPB recommended that parents not give mobile phones to children under eight years of age, that older children should limit their use of mobile phones, and that “the mobile phone industry should refrain from promoting the use of mobile phones by children.” Upon release of the report, NRPB Chairman Sir William Stewart said, “I don't think we can put our hands on our hearts and say mobile phones are safe.” He also said that “If there are risks, and we think there may be risks, then the people who are going to be most affected are children, and the younger the child, the greater the danger.” How has the U.S. mobile phone industry factored this warning into its service plans? Can it guarantee that children will suffer no adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones? If not, then why is it offering mobile phones to children? Is the industry willing to take full responsibility for the effects of its phones upon children’s health?
The move to put mobile phones into the hands of children as young as six years old is not a decision to take lightly. It opens up a plethora of problems, not just for the children with the phones but for schools, churches, families and classmates as well.
Now is the time to pause, investigate and consider. Once the phones are in classrooms, playrooms, and in children’s bedrooms, it will be too late. Already we read with grim regularity of children molested by predators who contacted them over the Internet. We read of children who cannot focus their own attention even for short times. We hope we will not now read about children abducted by adults who seduced them through mobile phones, and of school rooms that cannot function because of mobile phones that ring constantly, just because Congress did not stand up and act.
Sincerely,
Joan Almon, Coordinator, Alliance for Childhood
Michael Brody, MD, Chair, Television and Media Committee, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Brita Butler-Wall, PhD. Executive Director, Citizens' Campaign for Commercial-Free Schools
Angela Campbell, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
Raffi Cavoukian, D.Mus., D.Litt., founder of Child Honoring, singer, author, ecology advocate
Nathan Dungan, author, Prodigal Sons and Material Girls: How Not to Be Your Child's ATM
Leon Eisenberg, MD, Professor of Social Medicine Emeritus, Harvard Medical School
Henry A. Giroux, PhD, Waterbury Chair Professor in Secondary Education, College of Education, Pennsylvania State University; author, Stealing Innocence: Corporate Culture's War on Children
Susan Grant, Vice President, Public Policy, National Consumers League
Nicholas Johnson, Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Carden Johnston, MD, FAAP, FRCP, Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics, University of Alabama School of Medicine
Tim Kasser, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychology. Knox College; author, The High Price of Materialism
Jean Kilbourne, author, Can't Buy My Love: How Advertising Changes the Way We Think and Feel
Diane Levin, PhD, Professor of Education, Wheelock College; author, Remote Control Childhood?: Combating the Hazards of Media Culture
Susan Linn, EdD, Instructor in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School; Co-founder, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood; author, Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood
Robert W. McChesney, Research Professor, Institute of Communications Research, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Founder and President, Free Press; author, The Problem of the Media
Bob McCannon, Founder and Executive Director, New Mexico Media Literacy Project; Vice President & Co-founder, Action Coalition for Media Education
Ken McEldowney, Executive Director, Consumer Action
Jim Metrock, President, Obligation, Inc.
Ed Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG)
Mark Crispin Miller, PhD, Professor of Media Ecology, New York University
Diane M. Morrison, PhD, Professor & Associate Dean for Research, University of Washington School of Social Work
Peggy O'Mara, Editor and Publisher, Mothering Magazine
Alvin F. Poussaint, MD, Professor of Psychiatry and Faculty Associate Dean for Student Affairs, Harvard Medical School
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
Hugh Rank, University Professor Emeritus, Governors State University; author, Persuasion Analysis and The Pitch
Gary Ruskin, Executive Director, Commercial Alert
Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum
Juliet Schor, PhD, Professor of Sociology, Boston College; author, Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture
Remar Sutton, Founder, The Privacy Rights Now Coalition
Victor Strasburger, MD, Professor of Pediatrics, Chief, Division of Adolescent Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine; co-author, Children, Adolescents, & the Media
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
WASHINGTON - July 26 - 2005
CONTACT: Commercial Alert. Gary Ruskin (503) 235-8012
*******************************************************************'
US FAA sees hurdles to in-flight mobile phone use

WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - Substantial challenges remain to the in-flight use of mobile phones even if communications regulators ease their ban, the Federal Aviation Administration told lawmakers on Thursday.

FAA rules restricting the use of portable electronic devices on aircraft can be waived but a carrier would have to show that each model of phone posed no threat to aircraft navigation or communications systems, the agency's top air safety official said.

"The FAA is not changing its rules," FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Nicholas Sabatini told the House aviation subcommittee.

"If an air carrier is willing to take the time and incur the expense of testing and verifying that the cell phone usage presents no in-flight interference problems, our rules allow an air carrier to permit such devices," Sabatini testified.

Our comment:
So, how come none of the telecoms or phone & base-station manufacturers have been required to "incur the expense of testing and verifying that the cell phone usage presents no in-life interference problems" ? Airplane control systems are sensitive to mobile-phone signal interference and there are stories of pilots that refuse to take off because they can observe mobile-phone interference through their instruments ...but what about us humans? What reason drives the telecom & government belief that humans are in some way immune to mobile-phone signal interference?
Reuters - Jul 14, 2005
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleSearch.aspx?storyID=248074+14-Jul-2005+RTRS&srch=FAA
Click here to view the source article.
Source: CONTACT: Commercial Alert: Gary Ruskin (503) 235-8012

«First  ‹Previous   Page 182 of 182 
 News item: