|«First ‹Previous Page 2 of 731  Next› Last»|
|'Bad Luck' Cannot Explain More Cancers in Young Adults and Teens|
|USA||Created: 14 Aug 2018|
Is it just bad luck that a young man who has been using his phone for hours a day since age 8 is diagnosed with deadly brain cancer at age 23?. Or that a 21-year old young woman suddenly develops multiple breast cancers directly under the antennas of the phone she had stored in her bra? Or that a 24-year-old develops rectal cancer close to his blue-jeans back pocket now stamped with his phone’s faded outline?
Reflecting growing scientific indications of damage from microwave-radiating cell phones, bills before the Massachusetts legislature could reduce the contribution that cell phone radiation to these unexplained cancers in young adults. Educating about why and how to reduce phone radiation exposures has become a critical public health concern around the world. In advanced countries like Israel, France, and Belgium, phones must be sold with headsets and information about keeping phones away from the brain and body.
What’s driving the push to reduce phone radiation exposures? The World Health Organization reports a global increase of 13% in childhood cancer incidence. In the United Kingdom, rates of the same type of malignant brain cancer increased in regular cell phone users have risen while those of other forms of brain cancer have dropped. United States rates of malignant brain tumours have now surpassed leukemia as the top cause of cancer deaths in adolescents and young adults. Growing numbers of neurosurgeons believe that part of the explanation for this surge in gliomas lies in our love affair with phones. We have to ask whether they are right: does the unprecedented use of cellphones underlie these perplexing increases?
Whether climate change or pesticide-laden foods, the role of government of late seems to be to insist on proof that damage has already occurred before taking steps to reduce exposures. This turns on its head the basic public health concept: tis far better to prevent harm than to seek to repair it. If successful, Massachusetts is poised to join Connecticut, Maryland, and California as states that officially encourage reducing microwave-radiation exposures from phones by making a standard practice of using speaker-phones and headsets, putting phones in airplane mode when in a pocket, and other precautions to distance the device from our bodies.
This precautionary advice has not flowed simply from public health experts but has often emerged after protracted bureaucratic meanderings. Thus, with the strategic prompt of a lawsuit from the University of California, the Public Health Department of the State of California released precisely that same advice to reduce microwave radiation from cell phones in 2017. In spite of increasing numbers of scientific studies, the cell phone industry has long tried to keep the health hazards of this technology a secret--even going so far as to belittle the World Health Organization in the process. But all that is changing.
The National Toxicology Program issued a final report of its $25 million study that exposed rats to low levels of radiation for two years. Exposed animals developed DNA damage and significantly more highly aggressive heart and brain cancers, specifically schwannoma of the heart and gliomas in the brain – the same types of tumors increasing in young Americans. The distinguished scientists leading the study were so surprised and concerned about these findings, they felt obligated to inform regulatory agencies about this serious public health risk. During an unprecedented peer review of the findings, an independently convened group of industry and academic scientists concluded the study showed “clear evidence of cancer.”
The real-world implications are quite simple: If you walk around with a cell phone in your pocket, tuck your phone in your bra, rest it on your lap as you listen to music or against your forehead and eyes as you watch virtual reality, your body could be absorbing 300-400% more radiation than current 20-year old regulatory limits allow. In fact, tests from the French government, released after prodding by Phonegate Alert, revealed that 9 out of 10 phones--including iPhone 5 and 250 other types-- exceeded current limits by between 2 to 5 fold.
To reduce the growing burden of cancer on young Americans, we need to ensure that the Right to Know trumps the Right to Profit. Massachusetts State Senator Julian Cyr is advancing this basic right and asks that outdated cell phone test systems and official exposure standards be modernized before any more "bad luck" befalls our younger generation. Let this important revolution in public health begin.
Devra Lee Davis is an award-winning scientist and writer, Visiting Professor of Medicine at The Hebrew University and Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey, and President of Environmental Health Trust. www.ehtrust.org
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Thrive Global, Devra Lee Davis, 17 Jul 2018|
|Prof. Yuri Grigoriev, co-founder of RussCNIRP turns 93|
|Russia||Created: 14 Aug 2018|
Professor Yuri Grigoriev - 93!! Our congratulations!! Yuri is oldest russian radiobiologist and teacher for many doctors of science, the author of researches on the med-bio effects of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, co-founder and Honorary Chairman of the RussCNIRP.
View the post and images on Twitter:
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Twitter, Oleg Grigoriev, 14 Aug. 2018|
|Health hazards from mobile towers: Letter|
|India||Created: 5 Aug 2018|
Editor, Scientific reports on biological effect of cell tower radiation on human health are a grave concern. To get signals cell towers are erected at strategic places with receivers and transmitters attached to them. Receivers receive the signal from their respective suppliers and transmitters transmit the signal to cell phones and other devices wherever radiation could penetrate. The type of radiation transmitted from the towers is the electromagnetic radiation that is similar to that of sunlight but, radiation from mobile towers is seriously detrimental as told by physicists.
According to the report on “Cell Tower Radiation” submitted by Prof. G. Kumar, Electrical Engineering Department, IIT Bombay to Secretary, DOT, Delhi, in 2010, one mobile operator may transmit 50-100 W of power and so, more operators on the same tower or in the same location, means more power and more radiation. Cell towers transmit radiation 24 x 7, so people living within 10’s of meters from the tower will receive signal that is 10,000 to 10,000,000 times stronger than what is required for mobile communication.
India adopted radiation norms of 4.7 W/m2 for GSM 900. However, serious health effects have been noted even at low as 0.0001 W/m2. A few countries have adopted 0.001 W/m2 or even lower. The biological effects due to microwave radiation from mobile towers include: risks to children (softer skull, softer bones-easier for radiation to penetrate), risks to pregnant women, infertility, DNA damage, interference with pacemakers used in the body, effects on skin, ear and eye damage, weakening of bones, sleep disorder, tumours, brain diseases, increased cancer risk. Apart from having a detrimental impact on human health, radiation from mobile towers affects animals and plants as well. There are so many studies that have been carried out on this issue and one can get these reports on the internet.
I want to draw your attention to the locality where I reside at Mawlai Mawdatbaki, Pata-A where two tall towers were erected in 2005-2008 near many houses, some of them only a few meters away. One of the towers belongs to Airtel and the other to Vodafone. Last week, some technicians came to connect some device to the Vodafone tower. When asked, they said they are connecting Jio to the tower. Surprised and shocked, that day we came to know that Vodafone sold the tower to a company known as ATC, already two operators namely IDEA and BSNL are using the same tower as told by the land owner. Therefore, the two existing mobile towers are catering to 5 operators that are transmitting radiation non-stop.
Operators of mobile towers must be strictly instructed that power density inside residential or office buildings, schools, hospitals, should be within specified guidelines. Residents staying in close proximity to the towers must be informed about the harmful effect of radiation.
The crucial questions are: (1) Are network operators aware of health risks and do they follow the radiation norms and guidelines? (2) Do they have a Radiation meter to check the intensity of radiation regularly? (3) Who will be responsible for the health risks of people staying within close proximity to mobile towers? (4) Is the Government/telecom department aware of the sharing of towers by many operators and so, the strength of radiation transmitted by these operators together?
I therefore urge land owners to first understand the health risks involved when they lease their land to companies to accommodate mobile towers. I also urge those in seats of authority to rethink the situation and minutely assess the health risks involved and look for alternatives to remove the towers from residential areas and relocate them in areas where they would not pose a blatant hazard to public health, and at the same time be able to serve the needs of the public in terms of allowing enough scope for mobile phones to access signals. I strongly urge the public to understand the ill effects of radiation and therefore to stand united for an issue like this for the greater good of society.
We need telephone, internet and other modes of technology but not to the detriment of our health.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: THe Shillong Times, Bashida Massar, 03 Aug 2018|
|Sovemiddel i vækst blandt børn og unge: Ukendte langtidseffekter bekymrer|
|Denmark||Created: 3 Aug 2018|
Brugen af melatonin blandt børn og unge er blevet et fokusområde i Sundhedsstyrelsen.
Antallet af børn og unge med recept på sovemidlet melatonin stiger fortsat.
De seneste tal fra Sundhedsdatastyrelsen viser, at syv procent flere børn og unge i alderen 0 til 24 år indløste en recept på melatonin i 1. halvår af 2017 end i samme periode i 2016.
Fra 10.153 recepter i 2016 til 10.828 i 2017.
Den seneste stigning kommer efter, at antallet af danskere under 25 år med en recept på melatonin mere end fordobledes fra 2011 til 2015.
Det stigende forbrug giver anledning til bekymring, mener professor og overlæge på Center for Søvnmedicin på Rigshospitalet Poul Jørgen Jennum. Eksempelvis er bivirkningerne ved langtidsbrug nemlig ikke undersøgt til bunds.
- Vi tror at det er et forholdsvist sikkert lægemiddel, men på den anden side ved vi det ikke med sikkerhed, forklarer han.
- Hvordan reagerer vores krop for eksempel på at få tilført et aktivt signalstof? Hæmmer det så andre mekanismer i vores hjerne? Det har vi slet ikke har undersøgt endnu, uddyber Poul Jørgen Jennum.
Melatonin er et naturligt forekommende hormon, som menneskekroppen selv producerer. Forsimplet kan melation beskrives som et stof, der fortæller krop og hjerne, at det er på tide at falde i søvn.
Ifølge Sundhedsstyrelsen er bivirkningerne ved melatonin ”milde og typisk forbigående”, men styrelsen understreger også, at langtidseffekten ved behandling af børn med melatonin er sparsomt belyst.
Forkert at afholde børn fra muligheden
Anne Marie Raaberg Christensen, der er overlæge ved Børne- og ungdomspsykiatrien, Region Hovedstaden og formand for Børne- og Ungdomspsykiatrisk Selskab, beskriver melatonin som et ”nyttigt” præparat - særligt til børn og unge med udviklingsforstyrrelser.
Hun ser meget gerne, at bivirkningerne bliver undersøgt. Men indtil videre vil hun fortsat give melatonin til de patienter, der har behov for det.
- Det har så god en gavnlig effekt på søvn, og det deraf følgende funktionsniveau, at det ville være forkert at afholde børnene og de unge den mulighed, forklarer hun.
- Derfor er melatonin blevet så populært, tror jeg. Fordi det har faktisk en rigtig god effekt, og ikke rigtig nogen kendte bivirkninger, forklarer hun.
Hver fjerde uden relevant diagnose
Det er især børn og unge med adhd og autisme, der får melatonin, fordi de ofte har svært ved at sove. Tal fra Sundhedsstyrelsen viser dog også, at hver fjerde af de 0-24-årige, som i 2017 fik deres første recept på melatonin, ikke havde en relevant diagnose.
Det er særligt de praktiserende læger, som står for denne del af receptudskrivningerne, men formand for Dansk Selskab for Almen Medicin, Anders Beich, afviser, at lægerne udskriver sovemidlet til raske børn.
I mange tilfælde er der tale om børn og unge, der venter på at blive udredt i børne- og ungepsykiatrien.
- Det er børn, som med stor sandsynlighed senere vil få en diagnose, som godt vil kunne begrunde, at man i nødstilfælde er nødt til at skrive noget ud i et forsøg på at få dem til at sove, så deres helbredstilstand ikke forværres, siger han.
- Det er ikke en optimal løsning, men det er den mindst dårlige løsning vi har.
Anders Beich mener, at det stigende forbrug af melatonin er et tegn på et større problem.
- Det her afspejler, at vi har en epidemi af børne- og ungepsykiatriske lidelser som venter foran os, og det synes jeg er dybt bekymrende, siger han.
Minister ville have en betydeligt fald
Brugen af melatonin har været stigende i flere år, men en principafgørelse fra Ankestyrelsen skabte i 2015 frygt for, at forbruget ville stige yderligere.
Afgørelsen slog fast, at kommunerne først kunne bevilge en kugle- eller kædedyne - der også kan have gavnlig effekt på søvn - hvis relevant behandling med sovemedicin uden væsentlig helbredsrisiko var afprøvet først.
Derfor blev daværende sundhedsminister Sophie Løhde (V) kaldt i samråd, hvor hun igangsætte en halvårlig monitorering af melatoninforbruget. Ydermere gjorde hun det klart, at der ville blive iværksat relevante initiativer på området, hvis ikke der sås et ”klart og betydeligt fald” i forbruget i løbet af to år.
De seneste tal er den anden ud af i alt fire monitoreringsopgørelser og altså en slags halvvejsstatus, og indtil videre har der ikke været noget fald. Ifølge Sundhedsstyrelsen, der har forbruget af melatonin blandt børn og unge som et fokusområde, er det uklart, hvad stigningen skyldes.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: DR.dk, Thomas Klose Jensen og Morten Frandsen, 02 Aug 2018|
|Great Pyramid of Giza is a giant Radio Wave concentrator: study|
|Russia||Created: 2 Aug 2018|
An international research group has applied methods of theoretical physics to investigate the electromagnetic response of the Great Pyramid to radio waves. Scientists predicted that under resonance conditions, the pyramid can concentrate electromagnetic energy in its internal chambers and under the base. The research group plans to use these theoretical results to design nanoparticles capable of reproducing similar effects in the optical range. Such nanoparticles may be used, for example, to develop sensors and highly efficient solar cells. The study was published in the Journal of Applied Physics.
While Egyptian pyramids are surrounded by many myths and legends, researchers have little scientifically reliable information about their physical properties. Physicists recently took an interest in how the Great Pyramid would interact with electromagnetic waves of a resonant length. Calculations showed that in the resonant state, the pyramid can concentrate electromagnetic energy in the its internal chambers as well as under its base, where the third unfinished chamber is located.
These conclusions were derived on the basis of numerical modeling and analytical methods of physics. The researchers first estimated that resonances in the pyramid can be induced by radio waves with a length ranging from 200 to 600 meters. Then they made a model of the electromagnetic response of the pyramid and calculated the extinction cross section. This value helps to estimate which part of the incident wave energy can be scattered or absorbed by the pyramid under resonant conditions. Finally, for the same conditions, the scientists obtained the electromagnetic field distribution inside the pyramid.
In order to explain the results, the scientists conducted a multipole analysis. This method is widely used in physics to study the interaction between a complex object and electromagnetic field. The object scattering the field is replaced by a set of simpler sources of radiation: multipoles. The collection of multipole radiation coincides with the field scattering by an entire object. Therefore, knowing the type of each multipole, it is possible to predict and explain the distribution and configuration of the scattered fields in the whole system.
The Great Pyramid attracted the researchers while they were studying the interaction between light and dielectric nanoparticles. The scattering of light by nanoparticles depends on their size, shape and refractive index of the source material. Varying these parameters, it is possible to determine the resonance scattering regimes and use them to develop devices for controlling light at the nanoscale.
"Egyptian pyramids have always attracted great attention. We as scientists were interested in them as well, so we decided to look at the Great Pyramid as a particle dissipating radio waves resonantly. Due to the lack of information about the physical properties of the pyramid, we had to use some assumptions. For example, we assumed that there are no unknown cavities inside, and the building material with the properties of an ordinary limestone is evenly distributed in and out of the pyramid. With these assumptions made, we obtained interesting results that can find important practical applications," says Dr. Sc. Andrey Evlyukhin, scientific supervisor and coordinator of the research.
Now, the scientists plan to use the results to reproduce similar effects at the nanoscale. "Choosing a material with suitable electromagnetic properties, we can obtain pyramidal nanoparticles with a promise for practical application in nanosensors and effective solar cells," says Polina Kapitainova, Ph.D., a member of the Faculty of Physics and Technology of ITMO University.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-reveals-great-pyramid-giza-focus.html
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Phys.org, Anastasia Komarova, 31 Jul 2018|
|Our phones and gadgets are now endangering the planet|
|United Kingdom||Created: 31 Jul 2018|
It was just another moment in this long, increasingly strange summer. I was on a train home from Paddington station, and the carriage’s air-conditioning was just about fighting off the heat outside. Most people seemed to be staring at their phones – in many cases, they were trying to stream a World Cup match, as the 4G signal came and went, and Great Western Railway’s onboard wifi proved to be maddeningly erratic. The trebly chatter of headphone leakage was constant. And thousands of miles and a few time zones away in Loudoun County, Virginia, one of the world’s largest concentrations of computing power was playing its part in keeping everything I saw ticking over, as data from around the world passed back and forth from its vast buildings.
Dec 2009, Denmark: Mobile-phone technology is a Carbon-emissions Whopper!
Most of us communicate with this small and wealthy corner of the US every day. Thanks to a combination of factors – its proximity to Washington DC, competitive electricity prices, and its low susceptibility to natural disasters – the county is the home of data centres used by about 3,000 tech companies: huge agglomerations of circuitry, cables and cooling systems that sit in corners of the world most of us rarely see, but that are now at the core of how we live. About 70% of the world’s online traffic is reckoned to pass through Loudoun County.
But there is a big problem, centred on a power company called Dominion, which supplies the vast majority of Loudoun County’s electricity. According to a 2017 Greenpeace report, only 1% of Dominion’s total electricity comes from credibly renewable sources: 2% originates in hydroelectric plants, and the rest is split evenly between coal, gas and nuclear power. Dominion is also in the middle of a huge regional controversy about a proposed pipeline that will carry fracked gas to its power plants, which it says is partly driven by data centres’ insatiable appetite for electricity. Clearly, then, the video streams, digital photographs and messaging that pour out of all those servers come with a price.
I was reminded of all this by the recently published book New Dark Age, by the British writer James Bridle. He cites a study in Japan that suggests that by 2030, the power requirements of digital services will outstrip the nation’s entire current generation capacity. He quotes an American report from 2013 – ironically enough, commissioned by coal industry lobbyists – that pointed out that using either a tablet or smartphone to wirelessly watch an hour of video a week used roughly the same amount of electricity (largely consumed at the data-centre end of the process) as two new domestic fridges.
If you worry about climate change and a cause celebre such as the expansion of Heathrow airport, it is worth considering that data centres are set to soon have a bigger carbon footprint than the entire aviation industry. Yet as Bridle points out, even that statistic doesn’t quite do justice to some huge potential problems. He mentions the vast amounts of electricity consumed by the operations of the online currency Bitcoin – which, at the height of the speculative frenzies earlier this year, was set to produce an annual amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to 1m transatlantic flights. And he’s anxious about what will happen next: “In response to vast increases in data storage and computational capacity in the last decade, the amount of energy used by data centres has doubled every four years, and is expected to triple in the next 10 years.”
These changes are partly being driven by the so-called internet of things: the increasing array of everyday devices – from TVs, through domestic security devices, to lighting systems, and countless modes of transport – that constantly emit and receive data. If driverless cars ever arrive in our lives, those same flows will increase hugely. At the same time, the accelerating rollout of the internet and its associated technologies in the developing world will add to the load.
About a decade ago, we were being told to fight climate change by switching off our TVs and stereos. If the battle is now even more urgent, how does it fit with a world in which router lights constantly flicker, and all the devices we own will be in constant, energy-intensive communication with distant mega-computers?
But some good news. Whatever its other ethical contortions, Silicon Valley has an environmental conscience. Facebook has pledged to, sooner or later, power its operations using “100% clean and renewable energy”. Google says it has already achieved that goal. So does Apple. Yet even if you factor in efficiency improvements, beneath many of these claims lies a reality in which the vast and constant demand for power means such companies inevitably use energy generated by fossil fuels, and then atone for it using the often questionable practice of carbon offsetting.
And among the big tech corporations, there is one big focus of worry: Amazon, whose ever-expanding cloud computing wing, Amazon Web Services, offers “the on-demand delivery of computer power, database storage … and other IT resources” and provides most of the computing power behind Netflix. This sits at the heart of data centres’ relentless expansion. Green campaigners bemoan the fact that the details of AWS’s electricity consumption and its carbon footprint remain under wraps; on its corporate website, the story of its use of renewable energy suddenly stops in 2016.
Besides, for all their power, even the most enlightened US giants obviously command only part of a global industry. To quote from that Greenpeace report: “Among emerging Chinese internet giants such as Baidu, Tencent and Alibaba, the silence on energy performance still remains. Neither the public nor customers are able to obtain any information about their electricity use and CO2 target.” Irrespective of the good work carried out by some tech giants, and whether or not you take seriously projections that the entire communication technology industry could account for up to 14% of carbon emissions by 2040, one stark fact remains: the vast majority of electricity used in the world’s data centres comes from non-renewable sources, and as their numbers rapidly increase, there are no guarantees that this will change.
On the fringes of the industry, a few voices have been heard describing the kind of future at which most of us – expecting everything streamed as a right – would balk. They talk about eventually rationing internet use, insisting that people send black and white images, or forcibly pushing them away from binge-streaming videos. Their basic point, it seems, chimes with those occasions when the smartphone in your pocket starts to suddenly heat up: a metaphor for our warming planet, and the fact that even the most well-intentioned corporations may yet find that their supposedly unlimited digital delights are, in the dictionary definition of the term, unsustainable.
John Harris is a Guardian columnist
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: The Guardian, John Harris, 17 Jul 2018|
|Early literacy: Good in principle, perilous in execution|
|USA||Created: 27 Jul 2018|
Yet another clear indication of educator/official unawareness of the extreme health threat of wireless technology has appeared. This time, it’s the “Early Literacy Innovation Zone” (Leominster Champion, May 24) which intends to harness wireless tech to erase the vocabulary disparity between low-income children and their more affluent peers, from birth to third grade.
In the April 26 Champion was a piece titled “Leominster schools get grant for technology improvement,” conveying the rosily delivered message that a Massachusetts grant will enable schools to upgrade tech services, including wireless (Wi-Fi). The ultimate goal, said School Superintendent Paula Deacon, is that one day, the district would “have enough connected devices (in story context, Chromebooks and iPads) for each student in Leominster, starting at the high school.”
Ms. Deacon, please be careful what you wish for.
The literacy disparity is “compounded by the fact that 61 percent of low-income children don’t have any books in their homes.” But is the plan to provide actual books to these folks? Not on your life. It is to provide “equitable access to educational resources by leveraging the cell phones and tablets that parents already own to create an effective distribution system of comprehensive educational apps.”
The claim is that this system will improve brain development, which is 90 percent complete by 5 years old. Leaving the controversial question of the benefits of technology in K-12 education aside, this program threatens serious damage to the physical brains of children exposed to wireless frequencies.
Specifically, radiation exposure breaks down the blood-brain barrier. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of serious health effects being inflicted on kids (and all of us) through society’s oblivious obsession with wireless tech and all its gadgets. The young, from birth to around 20 years, are much more susceptible to health effects.
The truth behind Government lies about wireless (for only one example) can be difficult for some to accept, because the level of ruthlessness behind it all is itself hard to believe. The policies of Government are a response, not of the politicians and officials themselves, but rather of the powers that be, the permanent establishment that orchestrates and controls what is sometimes called the Deep State. The puppets of power, in other words, that operate and coerce Government.
Despite “Industry-Government” denial, there is solid scientific evidence of serious chronic health consequences from pulsed (information carrying) microwave radiation (ICMR), including DNA damage and possibly inhibited DNA repair, sperm damage, miscarriage, endocrine disruption, dysfunction of cell-membrane transport channels, autism, physiological and biochemical changes in the brain (demonstrated by EEG), oxidative stress, altered metabolism, ADHD-like pathology, and cancer. Not to mention eventual destruction of the ecosystem and termination of human reproduction.
Why don’t officials and educators know this? Could be because in their lives and education, they got programmed to become system believers, to follow authority unquestioningly, instead of doing some serious homework. The latter would consist in part of seeking out the science and the many warnings that contravene official pronouncements, such as the egregious lie that wireless systems are safe — even for kids. And the other big official lie, that the scientific literature shows no evidence of harm, as long as exposure guidelines are met.
Whereas, there is a report collating and summarizing 4,000 published, peer-reviewed studies (about 16-20 percent of the number estimated to exist) on various deleterious bio-effects of low-power ICMR: www.bioinitiative.org.
For a story about one educator who did his homework, readers are invited to search and read “Finnish Education Professor’s Warning: Wireless Technology in Schools May Lead to a Global Epidemic of Brain Damages.” And in an article titled “Why Are Finland’s Schools Successful?” except for equipment in a biology lab, technology isn’t even mentioned.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Leominster Champion, Peter Tocci, 26 Jul 2018|
|ICNIRP’s public consultation of the draft of the RF guidelines is just a gimmick|
|Finland||Created: 26 Jul 2018|
Recently, with several years of delay, ICNIRP finally put out their newest draft document for public consultation: ‘Guidelines on Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz)’.
Reading the ICNIRP’s announcement one might be misled by its candor:
“As part of the development of the guidelines, ICNIRP has regularly given draft guidelines presentations to encourage critique and discussion from the many experts who are not members of ICNIRP. From this interaction we believe that the draft guidelines have developed substantially, and in particular into a logical, rigorous and transparent means of providing safety for both general public exposures and workers exposed to radiofrequency fields as part of their occupational duties. Now we expect through this Public Consultation to receive the detail required for further robust critique of this public health document.”
Readers of these words may get an idea that ICNIRP is genuinely interested in the opinions of the general public and that the submission of comments will matter.
Well, from my experience, nothing could be farther from the truth.
*SNIP* read the entire blog via the source link below...
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: BRPH blog, Dariusz Leszczynski, 25 Jul 2018|
|Congressman DeSaulnier Introduces Bill to Hold Companies Accountable for their Public Health Impacts|
|USA||Created: 26 Jul 2018|
Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11) introduced the National Public Health Act (H.R. 6481) to hold corporations accountable for actions that hurt public health.
“From tobacco companies to gun manufacturers, corporations across the country profit off of products that can cause sickness, disease, and even death – but they are free from consequences. Meanwhile, the American public suffers. We do not own this world, we are only caretakers of it for the next generation. By holding free riding companies accountable, we can create a healthier, more stable, and more prosperous nation,” said Congressman DeSaulnier.
The National Public Health Act would require the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to work with the National Academy of Medicine to establish and continuously update a list of public health crises. In addition, the Secretary of HHS would be required to develop a list of products that contribute to these public health crises. Any company that manufactures these products would then be required to develop and implement a plan to mitigate any public health impacts of the covered product. This bill is a follow-up to a bill DeSaulnier introduced in the California State Senate (SB747).
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Congressman Mark DeSaulnier, 24 Jul 2018|
|Do Cellphones Cause Cancer? Government Study Reveals 'Stunningly Important' Findings|
|USA||Created: 20 Jul 2018|
Tiffany Frantz got her first cellphone when she was 16.
She loved that flip phone. Every morning, on her way out the door, she’d slip it into the left cup of her bra. When she was 21, while watching television one night with her parents in their Lancaster, Pennsylvania, living room, she felt a lump the size of a pea in her left breast, just beneath her phone. Tests later showed four cancerous tumors. “How in the world did this happen?” her mother asked.
Dr. John West believes he knows. In 2013, the Southern California breast cancer surgeon and five other doctors wrote in the journal Case Reports in Medicine about Frantz’s tumors and those of three other young women. Each of them regularly carried a cellphone in her bra. “I am absolutely convinced,” West tells Newsweek, “that there is a relationship between exposure to cellphones and breast cancer in young women who are frequent users.”
West has no proof, however. His evidence is anecdotal—and though anecdotes can spur a hypothesis, they can’t prove one. For years, scientists have looked for a link between cancer and cellphone use that holds up to scientific rigor, and they’ve come up short. That’s why when West told his theory to a gathering of about 60 breast cancer specialists, they dismissed the connection as mere coincidence. “I’m hoping that someday people will say, ‘Well, we laughed at him, and now he’s vindicated,’” he says.
Just because West can’t prove he’s right doesn’t mean he’s wrong. After some studies suggested an increased risk of one type of brain cancer, the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded in 2011 that cellphones are “possibly carcinogenic” and recommended keeping “a close watch for a link between cellphones and cancer risk.” But without conclusive evidence of harm, regulators have held back.
Meanwhile, cellphone use has exploded. In 1986, 681,000 Americans had a cellphone. In 2016, there were 396 million subscriptions to cellphones in the U.S.—more than one for every adult and child. Teenagers, whose developing bodies and brains put them at the most risk, are the most eager adopters. According to a Pew Research Center survey earlier this year, 95 percent of 13- to 17-year-olds said they had access to a smartphone, a 22 percent jump from 2012. A generation has grown up with cellphones—teething on them as toddlers, carrying them through middle school in their jean pockets and even sleeping with them under their pillows. All told, 5 billion people around the world now use a cellphone.
In a few decades, we might know for sure whether or not cellphones cause cancer. In the meantime, we are basically running a large, uncontrolled experiment on ourselves.
A Worrying Drumbeat
Scientists have clung to one reassuring point: According to everything we know about physics and biology, cellphones should not cause cancer. The radio waves they emit are “nonionizing,” meaning they don’t damage our DNA the way ultraviolet light from the sun or X-rays do. They emit similar radiation to microwave ovens but not nearly at the level of strength required to warm leftover pasta—or cook brain cells. (In the early days, research focused on the potential of cellphone radiation to heat tissues of the body, and safety regulations were developed to respond to this concern.) But there is no known mechanism by which radiation emanating from a phone would interact with brain or breast cells to cause cancer.
Still, the typical phone user’s level of exposure troubles health officials. Cellphone transmitters have to be strong enough to reach a cellphone tower as far away as 22 miles, which means the intensity of the signal at point-blank range is high. Holding a cellphone next to your ear increases the intensity of the radiation by 10,000 times, compared with holding it 6 inches away. Most of us are like Frantz: We press our phones against our ears, close to our brain tissue. For hours every day, we tuck them into our waistbands and pockets, near our reproductive and digestive organs.
Studies linking cancer and cellphone use have been inconclusive, at least in part because of the challenges of conducting research. Cancers tend to develop slowly, and cellphones have been used for barely a generation. It’s possible that effects simply haven’t shown up yet. And to come to a definitive conclusion, scientists would have to look at a large population and isolate cellphones as a cause for cancers, which is exceedingly difficult.
The U.S. telecommunications industry has not made cellphone usage data available to researchers, which would help in doing population studies. A spokesperson for the CTIA, a wireless telephone industry group, declined to answer specific questions but offered a general statement: “The scientific evidence shows no known health risk to humans due to the [radio-frequency] energy emitted by cellphones.” The spokesperson also cited U.S. brain tumor statistics, which show “that since the introduction of cellphones in the mid-1980s, the rate of brain tumors in the United States has decreased.” That’s accurate—but the trend hides tumor-rate increases in areas near where people hold their cellphones to talk—namely, in the frontal and temporal lobes and the cerebellum. A 2012 study in the journal World Neurosurgery showed increases in a particularly deadly type of cancer in those areas between 1992 and 2006 in California, despite a decline in other parts of the brain. In one part, it increased by nearly 12 percent a year.
A 2014 French study, published in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, looked at 447 people who had developed brain tumors, both benign and malignant, and compared them to a control group. Overall, the study found no association between brain tumors and cellphones. It did show that heavy users—those who used the phones for 896 hours or more in their entire lives—were more likely to develop tumors. But only 37 people fell into this category, which is too small a sample size to establish a link. And like many studies of links between disease and behavior, the French research relied on surveys in which test subjects were asked to remember how much time they spent on their phones, which can be unreliable.
A group of toxicologists took a different tack. They sidestepped the task of determining whether cellphones cause cancer and addressed a much simpler question: Is it possible that cellphone-like radiation could produce a cancerous tumor?
Rats Take a Bath in Radio Waves
In a concrete basement in Chicago, researchers at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, exposed more than 3,000 rats and mice to the same kind of radio-frequency radiation that cellphones emit. The study, which cost $25 million, was designed to test the plausibility that cellphone radiation could induce tumors in animals—to find out if there was some mechanism by which supposedly harmless radio waves could interact with cells.
The scientists decided to expose the rodents to radiation for more time than a typical user would be on a cellphone. They gave the rodents 10-minute blasts of radiation, followed by 10 minutes of rest, for nine hours a day. The rodents also got higher-intensity radiation than most cellphone users would get. The lowest dosage corresponded roughly to the maximum amount a cellphone user would encounter—1.5 watts per kilogram. The maximum allowed for cellphone users by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is 1.6 watts per kilogram, which occurs only when a phone is struggling to establish a connection with a cellphone tower. “Energy levels of emissions during a typical call are much lower than this highest permitted level,” said John Bucher, a senior scientist at the NTP, at a press conference earlier this year.
The researchers also exposed the animals to much higher dosages. Rats got as much as 6 watts per kilogram, and mice topped out at 10 watts per kilogram. To make matters worse for the rodents, the radiation was administered to their entire bodies, exposing all their organs—brains, hearts, livers, digestive tracks—to high levels of radiation. The radiation given to the rodents was so powerful, their body temperatures had to be monitored with microchips implanted under their skin to make sure they weren’t being heated like popcorn in a microwave. Even at the highest levels, temperatures never rose more than 1 degree Celsius, so the scientists could rule out heating as a cause of any damage from radio waves.
The radiation had a significant effect. After bombarding the rodents with radio waves for two years, from 2014 to 2016, the scientists evaluated their health and compared groups that got high exposures of radio waves with control groups that got none. Male rats exposed to radiation developed 6 percent more tumors than those in the control group that received no radiation. (Females, for reasons that aren’t clear, showed no such effect.) What’s more, the rate at which the rats developed tumors increased with the intensity of the exposure. The rats that got 1.5 watts per kilowatt hour developed four tumors, but those that got 6 watts per kilowatt hour got 11. That the occurrence of tumors increases with dosage suggests that the radiation is a significant factor.
Bucher cautions that the results cannot be extrapolated to humans who use cellphones. But it shows that something happens to animal cells when they are bombarded for a long time with strong radio waves. The study, Bucher tells Newsweek, “established that there could be effects of radio-frequency radiation that are potentially relevant for human health risks.”
One of the puzzling, and potentially worrying, twists in the results concerns the type of cells that were affected. Tumors appeared in Schwann cells, which surround nerve cells. The particular Schwann cells that showed tumors in the rat study were located in the rodents’ hearts. But Schwann cells exist throughout the body—in the head, in the breast, in the reproductive organs, in many areas that tend to get heavy exposure to cellphone radiation.
The discovery was especially concerning because prior epidemiological studies have shown that heavy cellphone users were more likely to develop rare brain tumors in the same kind of cells. In March, Italian researchers published another study, in the journal Environmental Research, with strikingly similar results. Scientists at the Ramazzini Institute also bombarded rats, 2,448 of them, with radio-frequency radiation for 19 hours a day over their lifetimes. Like the Chicago basement rats, the Italian male rats exposed to the highest exposure of radio-frequency radiation were significantly more likely to develop tumors in Schwann cells in their hearts.
A panel of academics and pharmaceutical industry experts reviewed the findings of the NTP study and in March concluded that, in the case of male rats, it showed “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity.” Dr. De-Kun Li, a senior research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland, California, described the preliminary NTP findings as “stunningly important.” And Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, called them a “game changer.”
The program results, issued in preliminary form earlier this year, set off a flurry of calls from public health advocates for the WHO to upgrade its classification of cellphone radiation from “possibly” to “probably” carcinogenic. But, as Brawley tells Newsweek, “it still leaves us with some huge holes.” Why, for example, were male rats more likely to get tumors than female rats? And why did rats exposed to radio-frequency radiation generally live longer than unexposed rats? Most important, if cellphone radiation causes cancer, how does it do it?
“These studies should have been done before more than 90 percent of Americans, including children, started using radio-frequency-based technologies and devices day in and day out,” said Olga Naidenko, a senior science adviser with the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit in Washington, D.C.
From a regulatory perspective, it’s too early to know what steps to take to protect the public from harm, says Bucher. He now believes there is a mechanism by which cellphone radiation could cause cancer. Until he identifies the mechanism, though, he can’t offer advice about how to engineer phones to prevent the problem. He is working on additional studies he hopes will offer clues by next year.
Dr. Gabriel Zada, a neurosurgeon and professor at the Keck School of Medicine of USC, is developing pilot experiments to test possible mechanisms by which cellphone emissions could turn normal but susceptible cells into cancerous ones. In one, he installed a working smartphone inside a box shielded from radiation. A glass bottle containing human brain tumor cells sits next to the phone. The rig is one in a series Zada plans to build to control the effect of radio-frequency emissions on different cell types.
While Zada and Bucher work on the next phase of study into the health effects of cellphone radiation, public health advocates continue to await final results and recommendations from the NTP study. They are scheduled to be released this fall, nearly two decades after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioned the research.
In a 2012 report to Congress, the U.S. Government Accountability Office called for a reassessment of exposure and testing requirements for mobile phones to reflect current use, the latest research and international safety recommendations. The report prompted the FCC to open a formal inquiry into the need to re-examine exposure limits, which it last did in 1996, long before Apple introduced the iPhone. As of 2016, the agency had collected about 900 comments on the question, but it has so far taken no action.
Current cellphone safety regulations are based on a premise that is now arguably false: that cellphone radiation can cause harm only by heating tissue. The FDA, however, has no plans to strengthen the regulations. It has “confidence that the current safety limits for cellphone radiation remain acceptable for protecting public health,” said Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in a statement issued after the NTP’s results were released. “We have not found sufficient evidence that there are adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radio-frequency energy exposure limits.”
Many other nations have stricter safety rules than the U.S. Since the WHO warning in 2011, at least eight countries—including France, Germany, Switzerland, India and Israel—have issued guidelines intended to reduce consumers’ exposure to radiation. Belgium, France and Israel banned the sale of cellphones designed for children, and others have forbidden advertising aimed at children.
The American Academy of Pediatrics urged the FCC and the FDA to reassess standards for cellphones and wireless products in 2013. “Children are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cellphone radiation,” wrote Dr. Thomas McInerny, then president of the academy. The group now urges parents to limit their children’s and teenagers’ cellphone use and warns: “Cellphone manufacturers can’t guarantee that the amount of radiation you’re absorbing will be at a safe level.”
In the absence of revised regulations and standards, I called Brawley on his cellphone to see if he had any advice. “Wear an earpiece,” he said. As he spoke those words, he was holding his cellphone to his head.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Newsweek, Ronnie Cohen, 19 Jul 2018|
|«First ‹Previous Page 2 of 731  Next› Last»|