Is there a Scientific Basis of Cell Phone Warnings

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7-YFNVXdYc[/youtube]

http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html

Protection Against Cell Phone Radiation

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Radiation Protection Products Cellphones

Despite industry’s reluctance to admit the scientific basis of placing a prominent warning on every cell phone sold, the legislation was indeed prompted by such scientific findings.

I’ve reported on a number of them in the past, such as:

A study by Dr. Siegal Sadetzki linking cell phone use to salivary gland tumors

Wearing a cell phone on your hip – either on your belt or in a pocket – has been linked to decreased bone density in the pelvic region. (All the other vital organs located in your pelvic region – your liver, kidney, bladder, colon and reproductive organs – are also susceptible to radiation damage)

Proximity to cell phone towers causes an increase in the symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity, including fatigue, sleep disturbances, visual and auditory disturbances, and cardiovascular effects

The REFLEX report, which concluded there is real evidence that non-thermal hyperfrequency electromagnetic fields can have geno-toxic effects and can damage DNA, which is an underlying cause of cancer

The BioInitiative Report, which includes studies showing evidence for:
Effects on Gene and Protein Expression (Transcriptomic and Proteomic Research)
Genotoxic Effects – RFR and ELF DNA Damage
Stress Response (Stress Proteins)
Effects on Immune Function
Effects on Neurology and Behavior
Brain Tumors, Acoustic Neuromas, and childhood cancers like leukemia
And much more

The 2009 special EMF issue of the Journal of Pathophysiology, which contains over a dozen different studies on the health effects of electromagnetic fields and wireless technology

In addition, a review of 11 long-term epidemiologic studies published in the journal Surgical Neurology revealed that using a cell phone for 10 or more years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same side of the head where the cell phone is typically held.

Another noted brain cancer authority, Australian Dr Vini Gautam Khurana, published a paper in 2008 titled: Mobile Phones and Brain Tumors, which also covers more than 100 sources of recent medical and scientific literature on this topic.

Geelong, Victoria,
Bolivia, Sucre,
Bosnia, Sarajevo,
Poland, Warsaw,
Townsville, Queensland,
Lithuania, Villinus,
Thailand, Bangkok,
Bundaberg, Queensland,
The Hague, Netherlands,
City of Gosford, Australia,

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Health Considerations and Cell Towers

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbeywqu5_n8[/youtube]

http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html

Qlink Pendant Reviews

Home Radiation Protection

Aircom Headsets

Mobile Phones and Tumors

In August 2001 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister under John Prescott issued planning guidance to Councils which included PPG8 -Telecommunications. Regarding the health aspect of masts, this guidance contained three paragraphs:
Health Considerations & Cell Towers

29. Health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is for the decision-maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case.

30. However, it is the Governments firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central Governments responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Governments view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.

31. The Governments acceptance of the precautionary approach recommended by the Stewart Groups report “mobile phones and health”1 is limited to the specific recommendations in the Groups report and the Governments response to them. The report does not provide any basis for precautionary actions beyond those already proposed. In the Governments view, local planning authorities should not implement their own precautionary policies e.g. by way of imposing a ban or moratorium on new telecommunications development or insisting on minimum distances between new telecommunications development and existing development.

Paragraphs 29 and 30 practically contradict each other. This piece of Government advice has been the subject of two court battles:

The first, on the 26th of September 2003 -Yasmin Skelt -v- The First Secretary of State and Three Bridges District Council and Orange PCS Limited: The First Secretary of State conceded the case which allowed a mast to be removed from Grove Way, Chorleywood on the basis that being within the ICNIRP guidelines did not stop the council from considering other scientific evidence with regard to the possible future health effects on the population close to the mast.

Then in November 2004 – T-Mobile UK Ltd v First Secretary of State: The First Secretary of State also lost the case, however this time the solicitors for The First Secretary of State were in The Court of Appeal fighting against a mobile phone operator. The ruling, which dismissed the appeal, effectively said that other than in exceptional circumstances, the council must accept being within ICNIRP guidelines as being safe, and cannot consider any further health evidence when deciding whether or not to give planning approval to a base station (mast). Observers have said that the case made by The First Secretary of State was very weak and did not offer any evidence that showed the limitations of the ICNIRP guidelines. “It was if they wanted to lose the case”. The First Secretary of State declined to the appeal the decision. And as the previous case was settled before judgement, this became the case that is now cited in similar situations.

There is much evidence that the ICNIRP guidelines are not adequate for determining the health risk of mobile phones, masts or other wireless technology. The ICNIRP guidelines only take into account the heating effects of the radiation while many new studies show that health effects are caused through non thermal mechanisms, at levels far lower than the ICNIRP guidelines (See the Bioinitiative report, Reflex report and others). There are epidemiological studies that show that health problems increase proportionally the closer people (and animals) live to a mast. This would not be the case if the ICNIRP guidelines were ‘safe’.

Given that such evidence exists, it is farcical that the law can say that the ICNIRP guidelines = safe. It is like having a law that states “Bristol is on the moon”. Sadly it is not only farcical, it is also harmful to those people, such as my own family, who are adversely affected by this.

Argentina, Buenos Aires City
Seychelles, Victoria
Jersey City, New Jersey, USA
Somalia, Mogadishu
Romania, Bucharest
Cote d’Ivoire, Yamoussoukro
Guatemala, Guatemala City
Latvia, Riga
Gold Coast, Queensland
City of Lismore, Australia

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Smart Meter Dangers or Blessings Part 2

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XjRhLetttY[/youtube]

http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html

Cordless Phones Health Risks

Blue Tube Headset

Cell Phone Tower Radiation

One might reasonably ask “where’s the money to investigate these risks FIRST’? The public doesn’t want smart meters forced on them. At least not before the US National Toxicology Program finishes up the study on RF that is not due out until 2014 (and, yes, we ARE wondering why if this program started in 1999, its taking 15 years to complete).

The early evidence points to multiple and serious impacts ranging from health effects (sleep disruption, heart arrhythmias and chest pain, headache, extreme fatigue, memory and concentration problems, disorientation and dizziness, etc.) to hacking of personal information, to interference with critical care equipment and medical implants to electrical fires.
And, it especially rankles when you consider that the CPUC has for decades ignored the health risks from transmission line EMF, even in the face of WHO IARC’s decision in 2001 that EMF is classifiable as a Group 2B (Possible) Carcinogen, right there with DDT and lead.

The bulk of the $3.4 billion in federal stimulus dollars for ’smart metering’ will do nothing more than supercharge the building of more transmission lines and add a layer of radiofrequency radiation (RF) to the system for monitoring and reporting. And, not a penny for or a single word about potential health effects. Now, your electrical power lines can bring you two potential carcinogens, instead of one. The CPUC has had sufficient scientific evidence since 1993 that EMF from power lines poses health risks, but has done essentially nothing to modify the way utilities are allowed to site, construct and operate power lines in communities. The CPUC should be out in front of the public safety questions about blanket wireless before it launches a universal assault on communities with it.

Horsham, Victoria, Australia
Gabon, Libreville
Ecuador, Quito
Estonia, Tallinn
Kiribati, South Tarawa
Greece, Athens
Luxembourg, Luxembourg,
Shepparton, Victoria
Spain, Madrid
Port Lincoln, South Australia

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Mobile Phones and Tumors

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzrgtp2niNI[/youtube]

http://www.emfnews.org/qlinks.html

Qlink Pendant Reviews

Home Radiation Protection

Aircom headsets

My Motorola digital wireless telephone User’s Guide states that “The available science does not allow us to conclude that mobile phones are absolutely safe.”

The same User’s Guide goes on to list several studies showing that wireless phones can have negative consequences for the user’s health. It says, for example, that “A few animal studies, however, have suggested that low levels of RF could accelerate the development of cancer in laboratory animals. In one study, mice genetically altered to be predisposed to developing one type of cancer developed more than twice as many such cancers when they were exposed to RF energy compared to controls [emphasis added].”

Besides these statements about laboratory animals, the User’s Guide provides some studies on humans! In a paragraph on brain tumors the guide’s author states: “When tumors did exist in certain locations, however, they were more likely to be on the side of the head where the mobile phone was used [emphasis added].” The guide’s author goes on to say that “…an association was found between mobile phone use and one rare type of glioma, neuroepithellomatous tumors [emphasis added].”

Savannah, Georgia
Solomon Islands, Honiara
Topeka, Kansas
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Uruguay, Montevideo
Nedlands, Victoria
Al Hayrah, United Arab Emirates, Al Hayrah, UAE
Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby
Bakersfield, California, USA

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Cellular Towers, Mobile Tower Hazards

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhnIoaCJEBA[/youtube]

http://www.emfnews.org/headset.html

Cordless Phones Health Risks

Blue Tube Headset

Cellular Towers

Efforts are being made to install WiFi in schools throughout British Columbia in the name of progress. School boards need to be made aware that this is a technology which has never been tested, and, therefore, has never been proven to be safe. It uses the same type of radiation that has been shown in thousands of independent peer-reviewed studies to be hazardous, especially to children.

When asked to investigate whether WiFi is dangerous, school boards and the IT specialists quite naturally look to Health Canada for guidance. Unfortunately Health Canada has established a guideline which is inadequate because it is based on another type of radiation. The levels of exposure allowed by Health Canada are among the highest (worst) in the world. Several scientists met the Parliamentary Sub-Committee in charge of Health Canada (HESA) in Ottawa in April to present evidence to confirm this statement. Please see the attached transcripts of that meeting. Therefore, when school boards receive assurance that the radiation levels associated with WiFi will be below the levels in Safety Code 6 (the guideline), they are being mislead into believing this means WiFi is safe. Harm has been shown to occur at levels drastically below those allowed by Safety Code 6.

Barrie Trower, a physicist and former British Secret Service member who specialized in microwave weapons for the UK government, was interviewed this week in Toronto about the dangers of wireless technology, especially WiFi in schools. Following is a link to that 6 minute interview. Mr. Trower refers to a previously classified government document which instructs that the information obtained through experiments be hidden from the public. http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=1573543914

Please know that despite statements to the contrary by the wireless companies, WiFi provides no advantage other than convenience. In addition to being safer from a health viewpoint, wired connection to the internet is faster, carries more data, and is more difficult to be hacked into. Is this worth jeopardizing the health of our greatest asset — our children, or their teachers? I think not.

I implore you and your office to take charge of the issue. WiFi is not in Federal jurisdiction so it becomes a Provincial responsibility. It is imperative that the harm associated with prolonged exposure of children to WiFi be examined carefully before it is installed in school rooms. Scientific evidence shows that children are especially vulnerable to the radiation. It is your departments’ and the schools’ responsibility (in loco parentis) to ensure their safety.

Denmark, Copenhagen
The Hague, Netherlands
Morwell, Victoria
Sweden, Stockholm
Taiwan, Taipei
Kuwait, Kuwait City
Eritrea, Asmara
Tunisia, Tunis
Holland, Amsterdam
Equatorial Guinea, Malabo

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products