Cell phones emit a form of radiation called radio frequency energy. FACT.
In the US the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has established maximum exposure limits to limit the health effects from this radiation. FACT.
These exposure limits require that the cell phone must be used with a minimum of 1.5 cm (0.16 in.) separation from the body. FACT.
Cell phone users who put their phones in their pockets or hold their cell phones directly against their bodies are very likely to exceed the established safe levels. FACT.
This fact, however, is typically buried deep in the cell phone’s user manual and sealed in the retail packaging.
Senate Bill 932 requires that the safety information currently included in cell phone user manuals be posted on point-of-purchase display materials and on the manufacturer’s website.
This Bill makes sooo much sense. Will it be passed?
Gold Coast, Queensland
Korea South) Seoul, City
Devonport Tasmania Australia
Al Hayrah, United Arab Emirates, Al Hayrah, UAE
It’s one of the signs of the approaching food collapse our world will soon be facing: Honeybees are disappearing at a truly alarming rate all around the world. Up to 30 percent of the honeybee population is collapsing in North America every year, and there’s no end in sight to “the silence of the bees.”
Honeybees, of course, pollinate about a third of all the food consumed by first-world nations. Without them, the global food supply crashes and food prices skyrocket. The human population, not surprisingly, would plummet. Honeybees are absolutely crucial to the chain of life on planet Earth, and they are dying in record numbers.
Efforts to understand the cause of the honeybee population collapse (sometimes called “Colony Collapse Disorder”) have so far pointed to pesticides, air pollution and even GMOs. All of those are no doubt important factors, but new research carried out at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology may have unveiled the real key: Cell phone signals.
How cell towers cause honeybee hives to collapse
Researcher Daniel Favre and his colleagues performed 83 experiment recording the reaction of honeybees to cell phones in their off state, standby state or active talking state. It turns out that when cell phones are in their “active” state (sending or receiving signals), honeybees are strongly disoriented and suffer from widespread miscommunication that causes them to stop seeking out food and begin swarming.
Specifically, their “worker piping” activity increases by 1000 percent (ten times).
As Favre explains in his paper, entitled “Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping:”
Worker piping in a bee colony is not frequent, and when it occurs in a colony, that is not in a swarming process, no more than two bees are simultaneously active. The induction of honeybee worker piping by the electromagnetic fields of mobile phones might have dramatic consequences in terms of colony losses due to unexpected swarming.
Favre went on to tell Fast Company.
“Among other factors such as the varroa mite and pesticides, signals from mobile phones and masts could be contributing to the decline of honeybees around the world. I am calling the international scientific community for more research in this field.”
Of course, by the time additional studies are done, it may simply be too late. If the honeybee population collapse continues for just a few more years, pollination of the global food supply may become nearly impossible. That will lead to the great die-off of human beings.
Funny how that works, isn’t it? Imagine the narrative of future historians: Humans multiplied and expanded their cell phone towers to the point where the pollinators all died. Then human civilization collapsed and the cell towers went silent. Within a decade, the honeybees were once again prolific and healthy…
Honeybees don’t need humans, you see. But we need them.
The arrogance of science and technology
In Rome, the scientists manufactured the municipal water delivery canals and pipes out of lead, thereby causing the widespread lead poisoning of the population without even knowing it. Science and technology has always come with a heavy dose of arrogance and willful ignorance. Today, the pesticide chemical companies keep producing toxics that poison our planet, and they keep doing it in the name of “scientific agriculture.”
See my related documentary – The God Within – to understand just how dark and deep this abandonment of life by the scientific community reality goes: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=E3B38…
Whether it’s pesticides, cell towers, GMOs or some other technology, scientists always insist their technologies are harmless to the natural world, even while the sixth great extinction is now under way on planet Earth. But no one can deny that the collapse of the honeybees is indeed taking place, and the beauty of Mother Nature is that when so-called “scientific advancements” get completely out of balance with the natural world and actually become a threat to life on Earth, the world has a way of keeping the expansion of the human race in check. It’s called population collapse. And it’s coming soon.
If we could turn off the cell towers, halt the GMOs, stop the spraying of pesticides and end the mass pharmaceutical contamination of our planet, then our honeybees (and other important animal species) might have a chance. But human beings are too shortsighted to understand their role in causing almost anything that impacts the delicate web of life on Earth. So humans will deny any responsibility for their actions, cover up the truth about what’s really going on, and even accelerate their own global population collapse.
Science cannot turn a seed into a living food plant
It will all be led by “science” and “technology,” of course.
And yet all the science in the world can’t create one scrap of real food that will keep you alive. Only Mother Nature can grow a plant from a seed, pollinate it, produce a flower and then a vegetable or fruit. Only Mother Nature can keep us alive, not science and not technology. And in the end, when the history of our modern world is fully written, it will show how the scientists nearly wiped out the human race through their arrogance, their mass poisoning of the world, and their complete disregard for the value of life.
Kansas City, Kansas
City of Bankstown, Australia
Jackson Mississippi USA
It seems we’re talking each other to death. The latest scaremaking the rounds — really, it’s just an old bugaboo revived andrefurbished — is the theory that talking on a cell phone will giveyou brain cancer.
Now, I’ve involuntarily heard enough cell phone conversations tofully believe that too much time on the cell can rot the brain — atleast the brains of the folks who discuss their intimate lives inthe checkout lanes at WalMart.
Still, the loquacious manifestation of cerebral insufficiency isa long, long stretch from glioma. one is annoying. The other isdownright scary.
Cancer can kill you.
And given half a chance, it will.
So when the New York Times starts running stories that implythat time on the phone with your brother-in-law could do more thanjust bore you to death, folks notice. and when the organizationmaking the claim advises the World Health Organization, peoplestart thinking about reinstalling land lines and writingletters.
But this is a case where reading the whole story goes a long waytoward untying the knots in your stomach. The International Agencyfor Research on Cancer has classified cell phone use as a“possible” cancer cause.
Also on that list are fuel oil, gasoline, coffee, pickledvegetables and talcum powder.
“Possible” means just that — they can’t rule it out but there’snot enough evidence to say it will, or even that it’s likely to. Inshort, it ain’t necessarily so.
Still, in a lot of ways, possibility is more frightening thancertainty. The verdict is in on cigarettes and asbestos, so we knowwell enough to avoid them. But baby powder?
That’s the spooky thing about cancer. On film, Ingmar Bergmanfamously depicted Death as a chess player. Cancer, I would venture,is closer to playing the slots: Hit on a certain combination offactors and claim the jackpot no one wants to collect.
Some diseases are easy — dodge the bug, kill the bug and you’rehome-free. keep your cholesterol down and your arteries clean andthe ticker keeps ticking. If we know the cause and can predict theeffect, we feel we understand, that we have some control, even whenthere’s little or nothing to be done.
So when the phone rings we can’t help but wonder if there isn’ta better reason not to answer than to avoid an unpleasant talk withanother bill collector. We eat broccoli and drink green tea with anappetite fueled by hope and fear in equal parts. We get scoped andprobed, irradiated and examined, hoping to tilt the scale just atad in our favor.
And just when we think we have things figured out, we read thatsomething else is “possible.”
Something else to make that daily wager more complicated. Anagging reminder that nothing in life is a sure bet.
United Kingdom, London,
Dibba Al-Hisn, United Arab Emirates, Dibba Al-Hisn, UAE
With the popularity of mobile phones, is now basically a cell phone, but phone not leave the body, many people prefer to phone in your pocket, some people like to get suspended from the chest, and some people even sleep at night, do not shut down, but you know that cell phone radiation? how do we stay away from it, the following 10 ways to tell you a little!
steps / methodsanother phone into the bedroom to sleep, not the phone on the pillow. melatonin will reduce the radiation secretion not only affects the quality of sleep, the body will accelerate the damaging effects of free radicals, ultimately leading to cancer and other diseases.
Do not phone into his trouser pocket. The study found that often the phone on his trouser men, men whose sperm count less than the normal 25% of mobile phone radiation affect different parts of the body, most likely male testicles by mobile phone radiation injury.
call often change hands. for a long time a cell phone, it is best left and right are often used interchangeably .
not a cell phone in an enclosed space. Do not lift, train, subway and other relatively closed space, a cell phone. At this point the phone constantly trying to connect the interrupt signal, the radiation would increase the maximum.
dial-up, stretching arm. handset connected to the strongest radiation generated by the moment, so the answer or the phone call, the best stretch the arm, let the phone away from the body, wait a moment and then call.
Do not use mobile phones to burn “telephone porridge.” long talk, it is best to use landline study found that mobile phone call 2 minutes later, brain waves are affected at least will last one hour.
smart phone radiation greater. smartphone built-in wireless devices, which produces a more radiation than a cell phone, because they mainly rely on battery-powered device can receive e-mail, Internet, etc. Therefore, minimize the use of mobile Internet.
send text messages than phone radiation is small. SMS communication can greatly reduce the head and body in contact with the mobile phone radiation. men send text messages, do not put the phone in between the legs. a large number of studies have shown that mobile phone radiation may harm sperm motility, but little effect on the female ovaries.
headphones. Although we can not use headphones directly to “destroy” the radiation, but radiation can the human body and isolated. handset farther from the head, the brain affected by the radiation less. Mobile antenna farther away from the body to accept the lower amount of radiation.
St. Lucia, Castries
Columbia Missouri USA
Ash Sha’m, United Arab Emirates,Ash Sha’m, UAE
If you have a young child at the moment, then you will probably have been asked whether they can have a mobile phone or not. If you are worried about the fact that the radiation might be damaging their brains, then you should take into account the fact that not everything means that they will have radiation damage.
Firstly, if your child uses text messaging more than phone calls, then you should rest assured that this is not as dangerous. Because your child is not holding the phone near their head, the radiation is not getting to their brain so this is a much safer way to communicate with them.
Even if they wish to make phone calls, then you can buy them a hands free device which means that they won’t have to hold their phone next to their ear.
In addition to the health issues that are involved with having a mobile phone, then you should also make sure that your child is not spending too much money on their mobile phone. You should be able to set limits on their phones so that they don’t have to spend more money than you’re happy for them to spend on phone calls.
The final issue that you need to be aware of is the fact that you can get internet on most phones these days, so you should make sure that you know who your child is talking to. Encourage them to be open with you about who they’re chatting to, and you should be sure that your child can use their mobile phone healthily and safely.
So, if your child is insisting that they want a mobile phone, you can rest safely in the knowledge that you should be able to allow them to do this and stay healthy at the same time.
Wichita Falls, Texas
City of Lithgow, Australia
Al Jaddah, United Arab Emirates, Al Jaddah, UAE
Another cell phone study, this one out of Turku, Finland, has revealed that cell phone use does, in fact, affect the brain. A significant finding amid the controversy surrounding the extremely popular devices.
PET measurements were taken on 13 young, healthy males who were exposed to the GSM signal for 33 minutes each, explained Science Daily. The study confirmed that glucose metabolism in the temporoparietal and anterior temporal areas of the brain hemisphere closest to the device’s antenna becomes suppressed by GSM mobile telephone electromagenetic fields, said Science Daily.
The study, initiated by Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience (CCN) at University of Turku, was described as methodologically unique in that it used both proficiency in brain imaging via the National PET-Center and CCN; measurements and modeling of radiation via the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland, STUK; and measurements of skin temperature taken by the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, TTL, noted Science Daily.
And, while definitive health risk conclusions could not be made, the study does indicate another way in which cell phones affect the brain. Study results appear in the Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism.
Recently, writing that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified cell phone radiation as potentially carcinogenic to humans based on its review of hundreds of human and animal studies, including the the well-known 2010 INTERPHONE study. That study revealed that the heaviest cell phone users—those using a device for at least 30 minutes daily—experienced a 40 percent increased risk for gliomas, the most commonly diagnosed type of brain tumor. About 13,000 people from around the world were involved in the Interphone Study.
While much research on cell phone radiation effects has not been conclusive, experts generally agree that more research is needed. Especially given that newer research has found links between the devices and other adverse reactions, such as decreased sperm quality and motility and male fertility.
Chula Vista, California
Grand Rapids, Michigan
St. Kitts and Nevis, Basseterre,
Hervey Bay, Queensland
Al Usayli, United Arab Emirates, Al Usayli, UAE
Using a cellular telephone while driving or walking clearly causes accidents, yet some people may be more worried about getting brain cancer from cell phones—a concern that has been largely dispelled by public health authorities.
The U.S. National Cancer Institute has concluded that “studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head or neck.” Similarly, the Food and Drug Administration has found “no increased health risk due to radiofrequency energy, a form of electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by cell phones.”
But fears of cell phone-caused brain cancer have persisted for at least two reasons, risk science expert George M. Gray said 7 September during a Capitol Hill briefing organized by AAAS with support from the Dana Foundation. First, public health messages have at times been mixed. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, recently classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” That group pointed to human evidence showing an increased incidence of glioma, a malignant form of brain cancer, said Gray, a professor and director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University.
At the same time, he said, people seem to be inherently fearful of unfamiliar, unseen or “man-made” risks, as well as risks beyond their control. Electromagnetic energy may thus trigger more dread than, say, a handgun. People using cell phones while driving may fear other drivers without fully recognizing that they have put themselves in harm’s way.
“People are much more concerned about radiation from nuclear power plants than they are about radiation from the sun,” Gray said. “More people die of sun-induced radiation in one year than have died in all of history from nuclear power plants.”
Scientific uncertainty obviously complicates risk communication, too. Radiofrequency energy, such as the waves emitted by cell phones, clearly does not cause damage to DNA in cells, which can in turn cause cancer. But different types of studies have offered conflicting results, said Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health. Some researchers have reported changes in people’s cognitive abilities before and after cell phone use, for example, while others have found no such effect. Studies based on cerebral blood flow as well as electroencephalography (EEG), a technology for measuring electrical brain signals, have been similarly inconsistent, she said.
“When we have a ‘risk,’ something that could cause harm, it automatically means we have uncertainty,” Gray noted. “If we knew exactly what happened, we would not talk about it as a ‘risk.’ It would be a ‘cause.’” In grappling with scientific uncertainty, he said, the public inevitably will want to understand both the cause of the risk and “how big a problem” they are facing.
Gray has investigated using numbers to communicate levels of risks since the public may at times be confused about terms such as “probably carcinogenic” versus “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” When the International Agency for Research on Cancer said that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic,” that classification represented “the weakest result they could come to,” in the absence of evidence to clearly disprove a connection, Gray said.
But he added that risk assessment is highly subjective, varying significantly across cultures, and from person to person. It is well-known, for instance, that white males generally tend to worry about risks much less than women, or men or women of color.
In an effort to reconcile conflicting information, NIDA researchers recently analyzed increases in glucose metabolism within the brain following cell phone use (Journal of the American Medical Association, February 2011). Fluorescent glucose was injected into 47 research subjects who took part in the randomized study, and positron emission tomography was used to measure glucose activity after 50 minutes of exposure to cell phones that were either on or off, Volkow explained.
NIDA researchers found that when the phones were on, there was “a significant increase in brain glucose metabolism in the areas of the brain that were receiving the greatest exposure to electromagnetic radiation,” Volkow said. But she emphasized that scientists don’t know whether this increased activity is harmful in any way. Many activities, including speaking, can increase brain glucose metabolism.
Further research is needed. “If cell phones are carcinogenic, the effect is not going to be immediate, and it will require long-term exposure,” Volkow said, in conclusion. “If they do have carcinogenic effects, the effects are likely to be small.”
Meanwhile, she added, simple, common-sense steps may help to minimize or eliminate any possible risks associated with using cell phones: Take advantage of hands-free technology whenever possible, select phones with antennas located at the bottom rather than at the top of the device, send text messages rather than making calls when feasible, and limit the use of cell phones by children.
“I am very worried about cell phone use and accidents. Those are real injuries and real deaths and yet that’s not high on our national risk worry list,” Gray said. “There are real public health consequences to having a gap between the way we perceive risks and what the risks really are.”
Umm al-Qaiwain, United Arab Emirates, Umm al-Qaiwain, UAE
Research efforts have been focused on the impacts of new technology on human health. One of the leading new factors is the technology of cell phones, which is predicted to have more than 1.3 billion worldwide users by the 2005. Cell phones have been of the fastest growing industries. Today most people have portable phones in their home, and/or cell phones. Theses devices are connecting people in convenient ways as their cost declines with the expand use.
Heath effects from phones and other communication devices is quickly becoming the focus of a great deal of research. It has been known that the subtle effect of light and colors with the human result in eyesight and that sound wave is energy transformed by the ear so we can hear.
Tests have been done by the Microwave institute of Zhejiang Medical University that show the effects of exposure to environmental electromagnetic fields (EMFs) EMFs are used in the cell phones we use today. Visual reaction time was prolonged and the scores of short-term memory tests were lowered in high intensity exposure groups. These test also showed that the energy fields could affect the central nervous system and immune system. Chronic exposure causes changes in some physiological parameters.
Pregnant woman have been warned to be careful and wary of using cell phones after research showed radiation produced by the devices caused defects in chicken embryos. Researchers still urge pregnant women to use cell phones until all risks are properly assessed. British mobile phone specialist Roger Coghill said the findings were ” enormously worrying”. Research has also been done on the possible effects of radio frequency radiation on prenatal development through the investigation in mice.
Australian research has found one the strongest links between cell phones and cancer. Mice were exposed to cell phone…
Pembroke Pines Florida USA
El Monte, California
Al Ghabah, United Arab Emirates, Al Ghabah, UAE
September 17, 2011
June 1 (Bloomberg) — Mobile phones may cause brain cancer in humans, a World Health Organization agency said, citing a review of studies.
Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from handsets is greater than that from phone towers and base stations, Robert Baan, the senior scientist in charge of the International Agency for Research on Cancer report on the subject, said on a conference call with reporters. The fields are “possibly” carcinogenic, the same category as diesel fuel, chloroform and working as a firefighter, according to the IARC, based in Lyon, France, which classifies cancer risks.
This is the first time an agency working group has surveyed research on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields to make a definitive classification, the IARC said yesterday. The agency didn’t issue guidelines for cell-phone use and said more study is needed after finding some evidence for an increased risk of glioma, or brain cancer.
“It’s not at the moment clearly established that the use of mobile phones does in fact cause cancer,” said Kurt Straif, head of the IARC Monographs Program, adding that the research points to ways in which risks may be lowered. “For example, the highest exposure is from voice calls. If you use text messaging or headsets, this will lower the exposure.”
Concerns have risen in recent years that cell phones might be harmful to the health of people who use them, according to the WHO agency, which said there are 5 billion wireless subscriptions worldwide. The U.S. Federal Communication Commission has said devices with a specific absorption rate, the amount of radio-frequency energy absorbed by the body, within a set limit are safe.
The IARC considers studies in its reviews that may have flawed data, John Walls, vice president of public affairs for the CTIA wireless industry trade group in Washington, D.C., said in an e-mailed statement yesterday. The classification doesn’t mean mobile phones cause cancer, Walls said.
Nokia Oyj, the largest maker of mobile phones by the number of units sold, said today its products comply with international exposure guidelines and limits set by public health authorities. Apple Inc., the maker of the iPhone, didn’t respond to requests for comment yesterday.
“It is important to note that the IARC has not classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as definitely nor even probably carcinogenic to humans,” Espoo, Finland-based Nokia said in an e-mailed statement. The agency has “only concluded that, based on limited evidence, it may be possible that there could be some increased risk for certain cancers.”
The working group of 31 scientists from 14 countries met for seven days last month to study exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile phones, radar, microwaves and radio, television and wireless signals. By classifying cancer risks, the IARC aims to provide scientific advice to government authorities.
The most recent research considered dated to 2004, and exposure levels from handsets have dropped over time, said Jonathan Samet, a University of Southern California professor and chairman of the working group.
The age of the studies also means the participants had used their phones for no more than 10 to 15 years, leaving open the question of the effect of longer-term exposure. The agency said the evidence was limited, and it may re-evaluate today’s recommendation once more recent research is available.
About a quarter of the more than 900 agents the agency has evaluated were determined to be “possibly carcinogenic.” The IARC lists substances as carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic, not classifiable and probably not carcinogenic. More than half the substances it has reviewed are listed as not classifiable.
The categorization that mobile phones are possibly carcinogenic to humans is appropriate, said Malcolm Sperrin, director of medical physics and clinical engineering at the Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading, England.
“The justification for such a risk indicator respects the anecdotal evidence,” Sperrin said in comments distributed by the Science Media Centre in London. “The publication of more data along with a comprehensive justification of any conclusions is eagerly awaited, especially in relation to children.”
–With assistance from Olga Kharif in Portland, Oregon, Amy Thomson in New York, Adam Satariano in San Francisco, Hugo Miller in Toronto, Simon Thiel in London and Jason Gale in Singapore. Editors:
Phil Serafino, Bruce Rule
St. Louis, Missouri
Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, Fujairah, UAE