Search news: View news by countries View all news

«First  ‹Previous   Page 372 of 652   Next›  Last»

Church takes mast money
Scotland	Created: 27 Jul 2009
MORE than 50 churches in Scotland have installed mobile phone masts, prompting claims they are jeopardising the health of their parishioners for money. Parishes are earning up to £10,000 a year from phone providers who have installed antennae in spires to broaden their networks. Most are Church of Scotland but four Scottish Episcopal churches and a synagogue have signed deals. The practice has been criticised by groups which say antennae could pose a risk to human health. While some studies claim to have linked them with nearby cancer clusters, others have found no evidence of harmful effects. St Andrew’s Church in Irvine, Reid Memorial Church in Edinburgh and Arbroath West Kirk are among those to have signed deals with O2, which typically pays up to £5,000 a year. T-Mobile said some churches were paid up to £10,000 annually. The network provider 3 said it had equipment in nine churches. Vodafone stated it had rental agreements with up to 20 churches in Scotland, and Orange said masts had been installed in more than a dozen. In 2006, the World Health Organisation concluded there was “no convincing scientific evidence” that weak signals from base stations and wireless networks caused adverse health effects. However, some academics argue they can weaken the body’s cells. Dr Andrew Goldsworthy, an honorary lecturer in biology at London’s Imperial College, said: “Churches should consider the likely effects on the health of the people living nearby as well as a small proportion of their congregations before allowing the installation of antennae on their premises.” Murdo Macdonald, policy officer in the society, religion and technology project at the Church of Scotland, said: “There is not an official central church policy on phone masts in churches. It is an individual congregation decision but obviously one would urge caution if things are too close to individual houses.” A spokeswoman for the Scottish Episcopal church said while some churches had telecommunications masts, others declined the advances of network providers. She added approval of the main church body was needed for a mast. Vodafone insisted its base stations observed stringent international guidelines and typical exposures were many times lower than the recommended levels. O2 said: “We are confident in all of the scientific evidence that has been gathered to date. We are confident there is no risk from masts.” Orange said: “People can be very reassured by the science. Review after review carried out around the world has not found adverse health effects caused by mobile phone masts operating within international health and safety guidelines.” Mark Macaskill and Julia Belgutay
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Agnes Ingvarsdottir

Bees dying and disappearing, are scientists really looking for the cause?
USA	Created: 27 Jul 2009
The might of US scientific analysis and know- how has combined to produce a report on CCD, the syndrome of the disappearing bee, the key ecological issue of our time and one which constitutes nothing less than an existential crisis for humanity, such is the importance of pollination within the ecosystem. An impressive array of experts are involved including some familiar names to those who have been following the CCD affair. Even the Department of Defence is involved. Is this a national security issue? Why not get Homeland Security in on it; or the CIA? They’ve been known to set up a sting or two. The report itself is the result of a “ a collaborative effort to define an approach to CCD”. This approach is presumably a scientific method, but what would a layman such as myself know about that? I proceed on the basis that it isn’t entirely divorced from common sense. CCD Progress Report 2009: Proof by Omission. Click here for full report of CCD Steering Committee http://www.extension.org/pages/Colony_Collapse_Disorder_Progress_Report_2009 Read More... http://inthesenewtimes.com/2009/07/23/disappearing-bees-and-em-radiation-proof-by-omission/ Cailean Bochanan 23rd July, 2009
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Martin Weatherall

How reliable is the epidemiological evidence on mobile phones and cancer?
United Kingdom	Created: 27 Jul 2009
From the blog of Dariusz Leszczynski: ( Research Professor, STUK - Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority ) EXTRACT ONLY Friday, July 24, 2009 How reliable is the epidemiological evidence on mobile phones and cancer? This blog was updated on July 25th, 2009 with a post scriptum. The opening lecture of the recent BioEM 2009, the Joint Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and the European BioElectromagnetics Association in Davos, Switzerland (http://bioem2009.org/) was given by Anssi Auvinen. He reviewed all to date published epidemiological studies dealing with mobile phones and cancer. In the conclusion of his talk Auvinen said that we have performed sufficiently many epidemiological case-control studies but that their scientific evidence is of insufficient quality to reliably draw any health-risk-related estimates. Responding to the question from the audience, Auvinen admitted that execution of more of the case-control studies will not improve the situation, because of the unavoidable biases, and will be only waste of time and money. I do agree with Auvinen’s position. At this stage of the research, the extensive list of various limitations of the executed case-control studies is casting a strong doubt over the reliability of the available epidemiological evidence as a basis for any human health risk estimate. The insufficient quality of dosimetry, selection and misclassification bias, low sensitivity in detection of health risk within the population are causing that drawing any health-related conclusions (no-risk or risk) is like “flipping-a-coin”. Another recent development is the publication of two different reviews by the ICNIRP Standing Committee I - Epidemiology. One of the reviews (available already on-line) will be published in September 2009 issue of journal Epidemiology (http://journals.lww.com/epidem/toc/publishahead). The other review is published as part of the ICNIRP Report (http://www.icnirp.de/documents/RFReview.pdf). There are two major surprises associated with ICNIRP SC-I reviews. First is the timing of publication and the second, even bigger surprise, is the difference in conclusions of both reviews. The first surprise is the publication time of the reviews. The obvious question is why ICNIRP SC-I did not wait for the publication of the summary analysis of Interphone project, which has been already submitted and undergoes peer-review before publication? Without inclusion of this “nearly ready” summary analysis of Interphone, the ICNIRP SC-I reviews are incomplete and already “outdated”. The second surprise is that the health risk conclusions are different in both reviews. SNIP. FOR THE FULL ARTICLE GO TO: http://rock-and-hard-place.blogspot.com/ http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1130
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Don Maisch

ICNIRP MOVES TO PROTECT THE CELL PHONE INDUSTRY
Australia	Created: 25 Jul 2009
The below analysis from Cindy Sage raises the question on why has ICNIRP (and IEMFP who does the risk assessments for ICNIRP) moved to release its risk cell phone assessment before the Interphone report is published. It would have seemed better to have waited until Interphone was published and then include that in the risk assessment. This is typical for ICNIRP and works out to be a tremendous gift to the cell phone industry. I wonder how much of a ‘hidden hand’ the cell phone industry had in the writing of this report, especially seeing how the power industry was earlier directly involved in the drafting of a power-frequency risk assessment. See: http://www.emfacts.com/papers/who_conflict.pdf Don ************************************************************************** From Cindy Sage, CHE-EMF Working Group: ICNIRP Releases Study of Cell Phone Risk Before the full Final Interphone Report is Published ICNIRP’s Standing Committee on Epidemiology has published a paper in the Journal Epidemiology on cell phone-brain tumor risks. It has been published just before the expected publication date of the Final Interphone Study. Several of the ICNIRP authors are also Interphone Study Group members, raising the issue of whether the timing of this article is intended to pre-empt Interphone Final Report findings. If so, it will certainly muddy the waters about the message. The ICNIRP article dismisses cell phone-brain tumor risks and gives an “all clear” message. Early indications from the Interphone Study Group members shows deep divide in opinion about how to interpret the 13-country Interphone results. Some Interphone members have publicly indicated they do see increased risk of malignant brain tumors at 10 years and longer – and that shorter study periods would not be expected to reveal risk because brain tumors take longer to show up. Others, including the authors of this paper in Epidemiology have been vocal in print and press in denying any link. The ICNIRP article in Epidemiology says there is “no causal evidence” of risk, This is not the question we want answered– the question is “do the data indicate the possibility of risk” with long-term (10 years or more) cell phone use. Answering the question – are we CERTAIN that cell phone use – means that until there is proof, there is no pronouncement of possible risk that might lead to precautionary action, thus helping the public to make changes while they have time to do so. How might this negatively affect the acceptance of the full Final Interphone Report? The manner in which the world press covers this topic? How will it affect the message to the public? More confusion? More delay in taking reasonable and easy precautionary action? The EC has invested millions of Euros, and delayed any real precautionary action now for years – awaiting the results. What IS interesting is how these authors circumvented addressing the positive results (results showing increased risk of glioma at 10 years and longer). Some examples: “Most studies of glioma show small increased or decreased risks among users, although a subset of studies show appreciably elevated risks.” “We considered methodologic features that might explain the deviant results, but found no clear explanation.” This acknowledges that a subset of studies show appreciably elevated risks, Then, inexplicably, these appreciably elevated risks are dismissed as deviant results. If you are looking to study whether cell phone use is associated with increased risk of glioma, and you find them, why would you then dismiss them as “deviant results”? “the available data do not suggest a causal association between mobile phone use and fast-growing tumors such as malignant glioma in adults (at least for tumors with short induction periods.” Why would anyone expect to see anything with short induction periods anyway? And why set the bar so high - to find causal evidence or nothing at all? Why not report the evidence that is revealed? The authors seem use the short-term latency data as a ruse to distract from looking at longer-term data that would be expected to show health risks. To muddy the take-home message and be able to say “see, no effect”. “despite limited data on long latency and long-term use… do not suggest a causal association between mobile phone use and fast-growing tumors such as malignant glioma in adults (at least for tumors with short induction periods)”. Again, here is the feint. No short latency effects. “For slow-growing tumors such as meningioma and acoustic neuroma, as well as for glioma among long-term users, the absence of association reported thus far is less conclusive because the observation period has been too short.” Glioma has been reported to be increased in every instance (every individual Interphone study released to date where the latency is 10 years or longer. and in other published studies of glioma and cell phone use, including Kan et al, and Hardell et al.) So, the observation period has NOT been too short for the multiple studies reporting increased risks. ” Overall the studies published to date do not demonstrate an increased risk within approximately 10 years of use for any tumor of the brain or any other head tumor.” This supposition only works if you ignore the studies that DO have 10 years and longer latency periods. Those all report elevated risks of glioma. Kan et al., (2007) and Hardell et al., (2009) meta-analyses using 10 years and longer latency show statistically significant increased risk for glioma, Ahlbom, Anders; Feychting, Maria; Green, Adele; Kheifets, Leeka; Savitz, David A.; Swerdlow, Anthony J.; ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology, Epidemiologic Evidence on Mobile Phones and Tumor Risk: A Review. Epidemiology Volume 20, Number 5, September 2009 The International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) is the body that develops public safety standards for exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) including radiofrequency and microwave radiation from wireless technologies and devices. Commentary by Cindy Sage, MA July 22, 2009 CHE-EMF Working Group
Click here to view the source article.
Source: EMFacts, Cindy Sage / Don Maisch, 23 Jul 2009

City of Albany: California EMF resolution
USA	Created: 24 Jul 2009
Resolution of the Albany City Council Requesting Federal Government to Update Studies on Potential Health Effects of Radio Frequency Wireless Emissions in Light of Proliferation of Wireless Use. Read the document via the source link below:
Click here to view the source article.
Source: City of Albany, 21 Jul 2009

I’m allergic to wi-fi waves says top DJ
United Kingdom	Created: 24 Jul 2009
FOR Steve Miller a trip to his local High Street is a living hell that makes him sick, dizzy and confused. Pubs make him feel the same and he can't use trains, airports or hotels without experiencing head-banging agony. But Steve doesn't suffer from some strange phobia. He is allergic to wi-fi. And sadly for him - and the other two per cent of the population with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity - the number of people pumping out the wireless internet signal is on the rise. Steve said: "I feel like an exile on my own planet. It's almost impossible to find somewhere without wi-fi nowadays. "If I fancy a pint I have to travel three miles to the only pub in my area that doesn't have it. I can't just go to the shops because huge parts of the High Street affect me. "If I go somewhere, I can instantly sense the wi-fi and have to leg it." Being extra-sensitive to this "electrosmog" has made moving house a nightmare for Steve, as stray signals from neighbouring buildings could make him ill. It has also cost the top DJ thousands of pounds in lost income. Steve, who had a residency at huge Ibiza club Pacha before his allergy, said: "I've missed out on loads of European DJ gigs as I can't find accommodation without wi-fi. Most hotels have it, as have all the airports. I can't even catch a train because they have it." Steve is safe in his current home, a detached house in a village near Falmouth, Cornwall, as it is isolated and has 18in-thick granite walls. But since he and girlfriend Linda decided to move, it has been hard to find anywhere remote enough to avoid signals. Steve said: "I can't live within 50 yards of anyone. I wouldn't be able to stand it feeling ill in my own house. "There's no medication you can take." Steve - better known to clubbing fans as Afterlife - now carries a wi-fi detector with him wherever he goes so he can avoid problem areas. Steve only realised he suffered from the condition two years ago after turning up at a mate's studio that had recently installed wi-fi. He and his pal were both feeling ill with headaches and dizziness and struggling to concentrate so they turned off the machine to see if they felt better... and they did. Steve said: "Some of my friends, or members of their family, are equally affected by wi-fi but are only just starting to notice as its use spreads. Headaches "Even now there's very little education about it." There is no hard evidence that wi-fi is dangerous to your health. But just three months ago teachers called for it to be banned in schools over health fears, and for a Government investigation into the biological and thermal effects. A couple of years ago the German government even urged people to avoid wi-fi in favour of "conventional wired connections". Steve believes the issue needs looking into and that many people are suffering from his condition without realising. He added: "I certainly believe most of the headaches people get at work are caused by it. "I've spoken to friends who work in offices who have ended up living on painkillers because of their daily headaches. They tried turning off their transmitters and found their headaches stopped. "There's a lot of anecdotal evidence that the radiation has made people feel ratty and tired, caused disrupted sleep, rows and even the break-up of relationships. "I'd advise people to turn off their wi-fi at home and see if it changes the way they feel. They just might get a surprise." HAVE you experienced wi-fi sickness? Share your views with other readers below. Steve's new Afterlife album, Electrosensitive, is out now on Defected Records.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The SUN, DAVE MASTERS, 24 Jul 2009

Cellphone use is volulntary, cell tower exposure is not
USA	Created: 24 Jul 2009
Thank you for last week's editorial regarding cellphones and the disputed antennas to be placed in our children's playgrounds. The article made some great points. However, it also made an egregious error by saying there was a lack of studies and evidence on the harmful effects of cell antennas on humans. It correctly pointed out that cell phones, held by the developing brains of children and teens, pose a greater health risk than cell towers. Scientific findings reported by the Interphone Study for the International Agency on Research on Cancer from several nations of the world, report a 500 percent increase in brain tumors of people 20 to 29 years old and links their cellphone use to malignant cancers of the brain, salivary glands and neck and, acoustic neuromas in the ear, a nonmalignant tumor. The difference we are trying to point out is that cellphones use is voluntary while chronic exposure to a cell tower is not. Both exposure conditions create a second hand radiation pattern that is becoming harder to avoid. In 2007, 16 scientists analyzed over 2,000 studies on the effects of electromagnetic frequency radiation on humans and released a preeminent paper on their findings called the BioInitiative Report. The European Parliament passed a major resolution in April 2009 calling for more precaution in the use of cellphones because of this report and advised not to place antennas near schools and homes. So far though, the U.S. government is strangely silent on this matter, probably due to the moneyed influence of the telecommunications industry. And the media also seems to be towing their line. But at some point, we all have to ask ourselves: Is the money and convenience worth the associated risks? It does not take a brain surgeon to understand that the way to reduce a tumor is to cut off the blood supply. LVUSD ought to break this wireless spell by considering the health as well as the educational needs of the students and school personnel and not raise money by embracing wireless digital technologies that can damage them. Howard Nehdar, Agoura Hills
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Agoura Hills Acorn, Howard Nehdar, 23 Jul 2009

Planners defy government to block mobile phone mast application
United Kingdom	Created: 24 Jul 2009
Birmingham planners have voted to defy government regulations by refusing permission for a 30ft-high mobile phone mast next to a nursery school. City councillors were concerned about the impact on the health of children and did not believe that applicants Orange had looked for a better site. Planning committee members threw out the proposal, on land at Streetly Road, Stockland Green, despite receiving legal advice that there were no grounds for a refusal and that Orange was likely to win permission on appeal. Yesterday’s meeting dissolved into confusion after committee chairman, Peter Douglas Osborn, appeared to suggest that councillors voting against the mast could be open to legal action and might be surcharged – forced to pay the council’s costs if Orange appealed and won the case. Council lawyer Karanda Artoon said there was no question of a surcharge. A vote on whether to approve the application was taken three times. On the first occasion, eight councillors voted against the mast and none in favour. Coun Douglas Osborn insisted on a second vote so that the names of those in favour of the application could be recorded “so they are not surcharged”. In the second attempt six councillors voted for and five against, but the result was ruled out because two councillors had switched sides. Finally, the committee voted by seven to five to turn down planning permission for the mast. Coun Douglas Osborn said concerns about the health of children at the Toto day nursery, 40 yards from the mast, were “irrelevant” because the government had decreed such matters could not be taken into consideration by planners when considering applications. Assistant planning director John Culligan said Orange had followed regulations correctly by searching for appropriate locations in Erdington and that the company would produce “compelling evidence” at an appeal to show why planning permission should be granted. Local councillor Matt Bennett, who addressed the committee and urged members to reject the application, accused Coun Douglas Osborn afterwards of “behaving disgracefully” by issuing a “thinly-veiled threat” about surcharges. Coun Bennett (Con Stockland Green) said: “There seems to be an attitude among officers and the chairman of the committee that phone mast applications should just be agreed. But there are far too many masts in this area and I am delighted this one has been turned down. It is the job of the planning committee to represent the interests of Birmingham residents and not the interests of developers and phone mast companies. “We should not be afraid to make decisions that companies don’t like.”
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Birmingham Post, Paul Dale, 24 Jul 2009

Beastie Boy Adam Yauch Diagnosed with Cancer
USA	Created: 24 Jul 2009
A cancerous tumor was discovered in Beastie Boys member Adam Yauch's left salivary gland, the rapper's record label, EMI, announced in a statement Monday. While the musician is expected to make a full recovery, the band has been forced to cancel their upcoming tour and postpone the release of their latest album, Hot Sauce Committee Part 1. "I just need to take a little time to get this in check, and then we'll release the record and play some shows," Yauch, 44, said in a video statement on his band's official Web site. "It's a pain in the neck (sorry had to say it) because I was really looking forward to playing these shows, but the doctors have made it clear that this is not the kind of thing that can be put aside to deal with later." According to EMI, the cancer was caught early and is localized in one area, rendering it "very treatable." "Our thoughts, love and prayers are with Adam Yauch, his family and the Beastie Boys," the record label said in a statement. "The most important thing is to allow Adam to focus on staying healthy. We wish him all the best and a speedy recovery." No new release date for the album, originally slated for a Sept. 15 release, has been announced.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: People.com, Brian Orloff, 20 Jul 2009

EHS Refuge Zone Tests EMF Valuation
France	Created: 23 Jul 2009
France : EHS Refuge Zone Tests EMF Valuation / Évaluation CEM Please use link to read all about it: http://www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/EHS.php#1
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Next-up.org

«First  ‹Previous   Page 372 of 652   Next›  Last»