News for USA

«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 167   Next›  Last» 

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

California lawmakers must reject telecoms’ cell phone power grab: Editorial
USA Created: 28 Jun 2017
San Francisco has hundreds of them: slim cylinders and flat boxes strapped to utility poles that serve as mini-cell towers to speed up wireless service. The devices are essential for anyone carrying a smartphone or tablet, but the subject is breeding a battle over money and political control.

Telecom firms such as Verizon and AT&T are pushing Sacramento to pass a law that would essentially remove the control cities and counties now have over where the equipment goes and how much localities can charge. In San Francisco’s case, the loss could total in the millions, according to Supervisor Mark Farrell, an opponent of the measure, SB649.

His argument, backed by scores of other local jurisdictions, is about as basic as home rule gets. Cities, not Sacramento, should have the final say on what private industry can build in the public right of way.

The telecoms are selling the measure as a way to streamline approvals and improve coverage, an appealing idea to anyone who’s had a call dropped or Facebook session cut off. But these companies also want to curb the fees that local communities can charge to only a few hundred dollars per device.

In San Francisco’s experience, nearly all of the mini-cell towers are approved, making the argument about timeliness suspect. The existing rules give telecoms ready access to phone poles and utility posts as a way to fill in broader cell phone service that can be disrupted by tall buildings, thick walls or rolling landscape. Also, as wireless needs grow, more bandwidth to handle the traffic is needed. Cities have responded with lease agreements and worked out arrangements to put the wireless boxes in the right spots.

This bill would shred that process. The measure, which is showing up in nearly identical shape in other states, is about cutting expenses and avoiding local oversight. Health concerns about cell phone towers are not an issue in this dispute since that topic is governed by federal rules.

The bill has already shot through the state Senate and faces its first test before the Assembly’s Local Government Committee on Wednesday. That panel should heed the criticism from their home communities and stop a measure that subverts local control.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: San Fransisco Chronicle, Editorial, 27 Jun 2017

'Health Exemption for Firefighters sends a Message to the World' by Susan Foster
USA Created: 26 Jun 2017
Trends often start in California, spread across the US and frequently around the world - And so it is with wireless technology and the policy advancing the now unchecked expansion of wireless infrastructure throughout our communities. The next few days may signal a policy shift tipping point from which there is no return, and firefighters – forever on the front lines when it comes to health and safety – have a message for all of us through their proactive stance.

A bill is pending in the California Assembly that will be heard in two separate committees on Wednesday, June 28th. If it passes and becomes law effective January 1, 2018, nearly all cell towers may be sited by telecom carriers without any local control. In a flex of corporate power and influence over the legislature, an amendment was added to the bill at the 11th hour to grant a pass to macro towers, allowing cell towers of multiple shapes and sizes to be sited without cities or local residents having any say in the matter. For all the connectivity people have come to wish for, no one wants to wake up with a tower beaming at or looming over their home.

*SNIP* Read the entire article via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: BRHP Blog, Susan Foster, 26 Jun 2017

French 'PhoneGate' -- Cellphone Users Say They Are Misled on Dangers
USA Created: 26 Jun 2017
Charges are flying in France that government safety tests on cellphone radiation failed to check where phones are mostly carried—in pants and shirt pockets - Nine of ten phones exceed safe levels in those places.

The French National Frequency Agency released the results this month as the result of a court order obtained by health advocates.

Dr. Marc Arazi, a medical doctor and radiation health activist, said “I am deeply concerned about what this means for our health and especially the health of our children. People have a right to know that when cellphones are tested in ways people commonly use them—such as in direct contact with the body—the radiation values exceed regulatory limits. This is a first victory for transparency in this industry scandal.”

Apple, Motorola, Samsung and Nokia were among the brands tested. When held close to the body, some phones emitted radiation three hundred percent as high as the manufacturers’ reported levels.

Arazi, Devra Davis, Ph.D., founder of the Environmental Health Trust, and other health advocates have coined the phrase “PhoneGate” and are comparing it to diesel emission tests that were conducted in laboratories rather than on the road.

Volkswagen cars passed in the laboratory but “emitted far more fumes” when tested on the road, said Davis.

“This is an enormous international scandal,” she continued. “This is not only about France and Europe but to all persons who use cellphones in every country. If phones were tested in the ways we use them, they would be illegal.”

Similar findings were obtained by a U.S. Federal Communications Commission certified laboratory as part of an investigation by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., she said.

Children at Risk—Davis

Theodora Scarato, program director, Environmental Health Trust, said the American Academy of Pediatrics has “repeatedly called on the U.S. government to update cellphone testing to reflect current use patterns.”
“I see children cradling cellphones in their laps as their mothers do grocery shopping,” said Scarato. “Teenagers are sleeping with cellphones on their chests or directly beside their heads all night long. Pregnant women put phones on wireless devices on their abdomens.”

She notes that France’s National Agency of Health Security of Food, Environment and Labour, in a July 2016 report “Radiofrequency Exposure and the Health of Children” conceded that the public is largely unaware of instructions to keep a distance between cell phones and anyone’s head and body.

ANSES stated that it was “unlikely that people, especially children, are aware of the conditions of use close to the body, as defined by manufacturers.”

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) independent survey of more than 11,000 Canadians found that more than 80 percent were unaware of manufacturers’ recommended separation distance and 67 percent admitted they carry their phones against their bodies.

The newly released French data is also corroborated in the 2017 independently commissioned investigation by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that tested popular cell phones in a US government certified testing laboratory and finding Specific Absorption Rate values surpassed the US and Canadian allowable safety limits when the phones were tested in body contact positions. In response to the CBC report, manufacturers stated they were fully compliant.

Flynn Sees Corporate Control

AT&T ($3.3B in ads), Comcast ($3B), and Verizon ($2.5B) are blocking press coverage of the dangers of Wi-Fi and other forms of radiation, says Jerry Flynn, retired Canadian Army officer. The three are among the top five advertisers. The only company with a bigger ad budget is Procter & Gamble at $4.6B. Ford also spends $2.5B in ads.

Flynn, who was involved in Electronic Warfare and Signals Intelligence, made his charge June 9 in an email to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“North America’s mainstream news media is now controlled by just a handful of multinational corporations who control what we see on TV, what we hear on the radio and what we read in newspapers,” said Flynn.

“Consequently, few people know the corruption that has taken place over the past 50 years – and is ongoing – which now literally threatens life on earth as we know it!” he said.

“Like all North Americans, Canadians are unaware that the wireless and telecommunications, and electric power industries control virtually all levels of government in North America! Only the Internet reveals that cancer clusters are not uncommon in jurisdictions around the world that have allowed cell phone towers!”

Major Players Back Wi-Fi

Sponsors of Wi-Fi and other wireless devices say that there is no evidence their use is harmful to users including adults, children and senior citizens. wi-fi.org says the safe use of radio waves has been studied for more than 60 years by independent scientists and "no adverse health effects have been found at or below recommended limits."

"Wi-Fi uses the same radio waves that are a common part of our everday lives," says wi-fi.org. "They provide TV, radio and an increasing array of mobile communications services."

The Mobile & Wireless Forum says the safety standards that it supports are based on “the best available scientific data.”

Members are Apple, Cisco, Ericsson, Hawel, LG, Intel, Motorola, Samsung, Microsoft, Sony and Tet Mobile.

MWF says “Health and safety, particularly of children, are of paramount importance. Wi-Fi and other wireless products are subject to international exposure standards set by health organizations around the world and endorsed by WHO and other health organizations. The standards are science-based and developed to protect the public and include a substantial margin of safety, taking into account the elderly, ill, pregnant and children.”

Main Threat Ignored, Say Critics

Critics say wi-fi.org and mwfai.org ignore how cellphones and computers are actually used: children and others press them to their ears and mouth; carry them in pockets next to the body; sleep near them or near a cordless phone base, and place wireless “tablet” and "laptop" computers on their laps. Wiring computers, keyboard and the computer mouse is also a cheap and easy way to avoid danger that companies fail to advise, they say.

Ed Friedman of the Maine Coalition to Stop Smart Meters said most government microwave radiation exposure standards for phones and other wi-fi devices are "obsolete and irrelevant." FCC standards in the U.S. date back to 1996 based on data from the mid 1980’s, he said. “They were meant to be protective only of heat-producing exposures and no consideration is given to non-thermal exposures which we encounter everyday with wireless technologies. Even the thermal standards were based on exposure to a physically fit 200 pound soldier, not children, the elderly, ill, pregnant or other sensitive populations."
Click here to view the source article.
Source: O'Dwyers, Jack O'Dwyer, 26 Jun 2017

«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 167   Next›  Last» 
 News item: