Dr Mercola-NEW Urgent Warning to All Cell Phone Users

[Amanda]

Dr Mercola-NEW Urgent Warning to All Cell Phone Users

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... _DNL_art_1

(videos, links, and chart at above link)

By Dr. Mercola

If you think the jury's still out on whether cell phones can be dangerous to your health, then you might want to take the time to listen to this video. Dr. Devra Davis, author of the book, "The Secret History of the War on Cancer," has been researching the safety hazards of radiation emanating from your cell phone.

Like many people, Dr. Davis just didn't believe the possibility of cell phones being dangerous―until she studied it. And now, with the toxicological and epidemiological evidence to back up her claims, she's trying to get the word out that cell phone radiation is not only dangerous, but can be downright lethal.

In her lecture, Dr. Davis explains how the biological impact of your cell phone is not related to its power, which is quite weak, but rather to the erratic nature of its signal and its ability to disrupt resonance and interfere with DNA repair. This is now believed to be the most plausible theory for understanding the wide array of health impacts discovered, which includes cancer...

Can Your Cell Phone Cause Cancer?

One interesting case that can serve as an illustrative warning of the cancer-causing potential of cell phones is that of a young woman with no other predisposing risk factors for cancer who came down with multi-focal breast cancer. The case was revealed in the May issue of the Environmental Health Trust's newsletteri.  As it turns out, the young lady had the curious habit of tucking her cell phone into her bra...

Two cancer specialists, Robert Nagourney and John West, concluded there was only one other possibility that might have directly contributed to her breast cancer. "We connected the dots," the patient said. And the dots―quite literally the pattern of the cancer, and distribution of the cancerous cells―lined up perfectly with the shape of her cell phone.

While her doctor can't prove the cell phone caused her cancer, it should serve as a potent warning not only to other women who might tuck their phones in their bras, but also to those of you who keep your phones in your pants pocket or shirt pocket as well. As a general rule, you'll want to avoid carrying your phone anywhere on your body. Keep in mind that the most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that proximity.

Why Carrying Your Cell Phone on Your Body is a Bad Idea...

Regardless of the area exposed to the continuous radiation emitted by your cell phone, there's the potential for harm, although certain areas are clearly more vulnerable than others.

For example, research published in 2009 showed evidence that wearing a cell phone on your hip may weaken an area of your pelvisii. Using an X-ray technique used in the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with osteoporosis, researchers measured pelvic bone density in 150 men who regularly carried their cell phones attached to their belts. The men carried their phones for an average of 15 hours each day, and had used cell phones for an average of six years. The researchers found that bone mineral density was lowered on the side of the pelvis where the mobile phones were carried, raising the possibility that bone density could be adversely affected by the electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones.

It's important to realize that as long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. So wearing a cell phone on your hip for 15 hours a day is giving that area of your body nearly continuous radiation exposure.

Previous studies have found that cell phone radiation can affect men's sperm count, and the quality and motility of their sperm, and this may be a far greater issue than its effect on bone density. One such study, published in PLoS Oneiii found that:

"RF-EMR in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation. These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring."

Men in particular may want to reconsider carrying their cell phones on their belts or in their pocket, in close proximity of their reproductive organs. In addition, you have a number of other sensitive organs in that general area, including liver, kidneys, colon and bladder—all of which are susceptible to radiation.

Recent Evidence Identifies Strong Cell Phone Cancer Link

Last year, an Israeli research group reported a sharp increase in the incidence of parotid gland tumors over the last 30 years, with the steepest increase happening after 2001. Your parotid gland is a type of salivary gland, located closest to your cheek—the same area where most people typically hold their cell phones. The researchers found a four-fold increase in parotid gland cancers from 1970 to 2006, while rates of other salivary gland cancers remained stableiv.

That same year, Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, the principle investigator of a 2008 study, testified at a U.S. Senate Hearing that cell phones were identified as a contributor to salivary gland tumors. The report states that your risk of getting a parotid tumor on the same side of your head that you use for listening to the mobile phone increases by:

•34 percent if you are a regular cell phone user and have used a mobile phone for 5 years.
•58 percent if you had more than about 5,500 calls in your lifetime.
•49 percent if you have spoken on the phone for more than 266.3 hours during your lifetime.


World Health Organizaion Classifies Cell Phone Radiation as Class B Carcinogen

Cell phone subscriptions are now estimated at 5.9 billion globallyv—that's 87 percent of the world population! I think it's safe to say, we've already passed the point of no return when it comes to this technology. But as cell phone use continues to grow unabated, a growing body of researchers is speaking out against the technology, warning that it may have serious biological side effects that must be acknowledged and remedied.

Fortunately, their warnings are slowly but surely beginning to be heard.

On May 31, 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a report admitting cell phones might indeed cause cancer, classifying radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Class 2B)vi. The classification came in part in response to research showing wireless telephones increase the risk for brain cancer.

According to the press releasevii:

"Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."

"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting."

Children are at Greatest Risk—Including While in Utero

Sadly, children and teens are at greatest risk—both for parotid gland tumors and brain tumors—as their thinner skull bones allow for greater penetration of cell phone radiation. The radiation can enter all the way into their midbrain, where tumors are more deadly. In addition, children's cells reproduce more quickly, so they're more susceptible to aggressive cell growth. Children also face a far greater lifetime exposure. According to Professor Lennart Hardell of Sweden, those who begin using cell phones heavily as teenagers have 4 to 5 times more brain cancer as young adults!

The following image, used with permission from the book Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution, clearly shows the differences in depth of penetration between adults and young children.

Pregnant women would also be wise to avoid cell phones as much as possible. In 2008, researchers analyzed data from nearly 13,000 children and found that exposure to cell phones while in the womb, and also during childhood, were linked to behavioral difficulties.viii Using handsets just two or three times a day during pregnancy was enough to raise the risk of their babies developing hyperactivity and difficulties with conduct, emotions, and relationships by the time they reached school age—and the risk became even greater if the children also used the phones themselves before the age of seven.

Overall, the study revealed that mothers who used mobile phones were 54 percent more likely to have children with behavioral problems. Later on, when the children began using cell phones themselves, they were:

•80 percent more likely to suffer from behavioral difficulties
•25 percent more at risk from emotional problems
•34 percent more likely to suffer from difficulties relating to their peers
•35 percent more likely to be hyperactive
•49 percent more prone to problems with conduct


Experts Adamantly Claim Harmful Effects are Now Provable

Experts in the area of the biological effects of electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and wireless technologies believe there's virtually no doubt that cell phones and related gadgets are capable of causing not only cancer but contributing to a wide variety of other conditions, from depression and diabetes to heart irregularities and impaired fertility. Researchers have now identified numerous mechanisms of harm, which explain how electromagnetic fields impact your cells and damages your DNA.

One such expert is Dr. Martin Blank, PhD, one of the most experienced researchers of the cellular and molecular effects of electromagnetic fields in the U.S. He gave an informative speech at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, "The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields," co-sponsored by ElectromagneticHealth.org. In it, he explained why your DNA, with its 'coil of coils' structure, is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds.

As described in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, April 2011ix, DNA possesses the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas: electronic conduction, and self-symmetry.

These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA to electromagnetic fields than other tissues, making the long-term consequences of repeated microwave exposures to our genetic material of great concern. Dr. Blank is adamant when he says that there IS evidence of harm, and that the harm can be significant. He also points out that the science showing harmful effects has been peer-reviewed, published, and that the results have been replicated, evaluated and "judged by scientists capable of judging it." I wrote an in-depth article about these findings back in January of last year. If you missed it, go ahead and review it now.

An analysis of the range of known mechanisms of action, including DNA effects, was published in November 2010 in "Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matterx." Furthermore, the mobile industry's own research in the 13-country Interphone studyxi showed a 40 percent increased risk of brain cancer from 1,640 or more hours of cell phone use, and independent Swedish research published in 2007 showed a 540 percent increased risk of brain cancer from greater than 2,000 hours of cell phone usexii.


My Top Tips for Cell Phone Safety

It's worth remembering that the telecommunication industry is much larger than the medical industrial complex, and they have far more influence than the drug companies. They're also mirroring many of the same tactics as the tobacco industry to pedal their wares. This includes attempting to discredit researchers who publish unfavorable cell phone studies.

As Dr. Davis shows in her lecture above, the results of any study can be accurately predicted by looking at its sponsorship. According to a review by Dr. Lai in 2008, the probability that a study will find "no effect" is two to three times higher in industry-funded studies, while independently-funded studies into the health effects of mobile technology are TWICE as likely to find a positive result.

So please, be aware that there is already robust scientific evidence that cell phones and other wireless devices pose significant health risks to all of us—especially to children and pregnant women. So while such findings are not being widely publicized as of yet, it makes sense to take action now to protect yourself and your children. You can help to minimize your exposure to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and other wireless devices by heeding the following advice:

•Children Should Always Avoid Using Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type.
•Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. If you're pregnant, avoiding or reducing your cell phone use may be especially important.
•Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness. SKYPE offers a portable number via your computer that can plug into any Ethernet port while traveling.
•Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them as often as you do. And most importantly, do not even consider having any electronic or wireless devices in the bedroom that will interfere with the quality of your sleep.
If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are not safer during calls, but at least many of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made. Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won't help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers.

Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, they may not be as damaging to your health. Another option is to just simply turn the portable phone off, only using it when you specifically need the convenience of moving about while on a call.

Ideally it would be helpful to turn off your base station every night before you go to bed.

You can find RF meters as well as remediation supplies at http://www.emfsafetystore.com. But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.

•Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.

•Avoid Carrying Your Phone on Your Body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility.

•Don't Assume One Cell Phone is Safer than Another: There's no such thing as a "safe" cell phone.  This is particularly true for industry promoted SAR ratings, which are virtually useless in measuring the true potential biological danger as most all of the damage is not done by heat transfer, which SAR measures.

•Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.

•Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children.
If you are using the Pong case, which redirects the cell phone radiation away from the head and successfully lowers the SAR effect, realize that in redirecting the radiation away from your head this may be intensifying the radiation in another direction, perhaps toward the person next to you, or, if in your pocket, increasing radiation intensity toward your body. Caution is always advised in dealing with any radiation-emitting device. We recommend cell phones be kept 'Off' except for emergencies.

•Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded -- and most of them are not -- the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain.
Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.

The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.

[Anonymous]

Dr Mercola is just a jew who makes money by being an alarmist.

BTW, this is his house.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Regardless, bluejelly, cellular technology, WiFi, et al. have negative health effects. The science is in. And it plays a huge part in the New World Order takeover.

[Anonymous]

Well the radiation from cellphones & wifi is very low, they are low powered and it is non-iodizing radiation as well. That is what they do, one group says it is perfectly safe, and other says it is deadly and you will get tumors in 5 years. They do it to everything, it is designed so you end up knowing nothing about anything. Go and read information about non-iodizing radiation, get informed that way, don't just read articles that put all the information together and throw in a bunch of studies, that is how people become misinformed.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Well the radiation from cellphones & wifi is very low, they are low powered and it is non-iodizing radiation as well. That is what they do, one group says it is perfectly safe, and other says it is deadly and you will get tumors in 5 years. They do it to everything, it is designed so you end up knowing nothing about anything. Go and read information about non-iodizing radiation, get informed that way, don't just read articles that put all the information together and throw in a bunch of studies, that is how people become misinformed.

Radiation doesn't have to be ionizing to be dangerous. Your comments show that you really haven't a clue how EMF works, let alone the body's own intricate electrical system. It's not about it being "low" or "high", it's about the frequency. WiFi is designed to interfere with the human body's own electrical signals (Yes, the body is electrical), whether it be cordless phones, cell phones, smart meters, etc. It's the perfect invisible weapon, far worse than chemtrails or mercury in vaccines, etc.

[youtube:2aq8igkt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLWRdkxKXiw[/youtube]2aq8igkt]

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS

DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND MEDICINE

Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation in Fire Department Facilities from Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for the Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions

The International Association of Fire Fighters' position on locating cell towers commercial wireless infrastructure on fire department facilities, as adopted by its membership in August 2004 (1), is that the IAFF oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.

 

Further, the IAFF is investigating funding for a U.S. and Canadian study that would characterize exposures from RF/MW radiation in fire houses with and without cellular antennae, and examine the health status of the fire fighters as a function of their assignment in exposed or unexposed fire houses. Specifically, there is concern for the effects of radio frequency radiation on the central nervous system (CNS) and the immune system, as well as other metabolic effects observed in preliminary studies.

It is the belief of some international governments and regulatory bodies and of the wireless telecommunications industry that no consistent increases in health risk exist from exposure to RF/MW radiation unless the intensity of the radiation is sufficient to heat body tissue.  However, it is important to note that these positions are based on non-continuous exposures to the general public to low intensity RF/MW radiation emitted from wireless telecommunications base stations.  Furthermore, most studies that are the basis of this position are at least five years old and generally look at the safety of the phone itself.  IAFF members are concerned about the effects of living directly under these antenna base stations for a considerable stationary period of time and on a daily basis.  There are established biological effects from exposure to low-level RF/MW radiation.  Such biological effects are recognized as markers of adverse health effects when they arise from exposure to toxic chemicals for example. The IAFF's efforts will attempt to establish whether there is a correlation between such biological effects and a health risk to fire fighters and emergency medical personnel due to the siting of cell phone antennas and base stations at fire stations and facilities where they work.

Background

Critical questions concerning the health effects and safety of RF/MW radiation remain.  Accordingly, should we allow exposure of our fire fighters and emergency medical personnel to this radiation to continue for the next twenty years when there is ongoing controversy over many aspects of RF/MW health effects?  While no one disagrees that serious health hazards occur when living cells in the body are heated, as happens with high intensity RF/MW exposure (just like in a microwave oven), scientists are currently investigating the health hazards of low intensity RF/MW exposure. Low intensity RF/MW exposure is exposure which does not raise the temperature of the living cells in the body.

Additionally, a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences panel designated power frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF/EMF) as "possible human carcinogens." (2)  In March 2002 The International Association on Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization also assigned this designation to ELF/EMF in Volume 80 of its IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. (3)

Fixed antennas used for wireless telecommunications are referred to as cellular base stations, cell stations, PCS ("Personal Communications Service") stations or telephone transmission towers. These base stations consist of antennas and electronic equipment. Because the antennas need to be high in the air, they are often located on towers, poles, water tanks, or rooftops. Typical heights for freestanding base station towers are 50-200 feet.

Some base stations use antennas that look like poles, 10 to 15 feet in length, that are referred to as "omni-directional" antennas. These types of antennas are usually found in rural areas. In urban and suburban areas, wireless providers now more commonly use panel or sector antennas for their base stations. These antennas consist of rectangular panels, about 1 by 4 feet in dimension. The antennas are usually arranged in three groups of three antennas each. One antenna in each group is used to transmit signals to wireless phones, and the other two antennas in each group are used to receive signals from wireless phones.

At any base station site, the amount of RF/MW radiation produced depends on the number of radio channels (transmitters) per antenna and the power of each transmitter.  Typically, 21 channels per antenna sector are available.  For a typical cell site using sector antennas, each of the three transmitting antennas could be connected to up to 21 transmitters for a total of 63 transmitters.  When omni-directional antennas are used, a cellular base station could theoretically use up to 96 transmitters. Base stations used for PCS communications generally require fewer transmitters than those used for cellular radio transmissions, since PCS carriers usually have a higher density of base station antenna sites.

The electromagnetic RF/MW radiation transmitted from base station antennas travel toward the horizon in relatively narrow paths. The individual pattern for a single array of sector antennas is wedge-shaped, like a piece of pie.  Cellular and PCS base stations in the United States are required to comply with limits for exposure recommended by expert organizations and endorsed by government agencies responsible for health and safety.  When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted on rooftops, RF/MW radiation levels on that roof or on others near by would be greater than those typically encountered on the ground.

The telecommunications industry claims cellular antennas are safe because the RF/MW radiation they produce is too weak to cause heating, i.e., a "thermal effect." They point to "safety standards" from groups such as ANSI/IEEE or ICNIRP to support their claims. But these groups have explicitly stated that their claims of "safe RF/MW radiation exposure is harmless" rest on the fact that it is too weak to produce a rise in body temperature, a "thermal effect." (4)

There is a large body of internationally accepted scientific evidence which points to the existence of non-thermal effects of RF/MW radiation. The issue at the present time is not whether such evidence exists, but rather what weight to give it.

Internationally acknowledged experts in the field of RF/MW radiation research have shown that RF/MW transmissions of the type used in digital cellular antennas and phones can have critical effects on cell cultures, animals, and people in laboratories and have also found epidemiological evidence (studies of communities, not in the laboratory) of serious health effects at "non-thermal levels," where the intensity of the RF/MW radiation was too low to cause heating. They have found:

Increased cell growth of brain cancer cells (5)
A doubling of the rate of lymphoma in mice (6)
Changes in tumor growth in rats (7)
An increased number of tumors in rats (
Increased single- and double-strand breaks in DNA, our genetic material (9)
2 to 4 times as many cancers in Polish soldiers exposed to RF (10)
More childhood leukemia in children exposed to RF (11)
Changes in sleep patterns and REM type sleep (12)
Headaches caused by RF/MW radiation exposure (13)
Neurologic changes (14) including:
Changes in the blood-brain-barrier (15)
Changes in cellular morphology (including cell death) (16)
Changes in neural electrophysiology (EEG) (17)
Changes in neurotransmitters (which affect motivation and pain perception) (18)
Metabolic changes (of calcium ions, for instance) (19)
Cytogenetic effects (which can affect cancer, Alzheimer's, neurodegenerative diseases) (20)
Decreased memory, attention, and slower reaction time in school children (21)
Retarded learning in rats indicating a deficit in spatial "working memory" (22)
Increased blood pressure in healthy men (23)
Damage to eye cells when combined with commonly used glaucoma medications (24)
 

Many national and international organizations have recognized the need to define the true risk of low intensity, non-thermal RF/MW radiation exposure, calling for intensive scientific investigation to answer the open questions.  These include:

The World Health Organization, noting reports of "cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss, and adverse changes in the behavior and development of children." (25)
The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (26)
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (27)
The Swedish Work Environmental Fund (28)
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) (29)
The European Commission (EC) (30)
New Zealand's Ministry of Health (31)
National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (32)
Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization of Australia (CSIRO) (33)
The Royal Society of Canada expert group report prepared for Health Canada (34)
European Union's REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods) (35)
The Independent Group on Electromagnetic Fields of the Swedish Radiation Protection Board (SSI) (36)
The United Kingdom's National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) (37)
The EMF-Team Finland's Helsinki Appeal 2005 (38)
Non-thermal effects are recognized by experts on RF/MW radiation and health to be potential health hazards.  Safe levels of RF/MW exposure for these low intensity, non-thermal effects have not yet been established.

The FDA has explicitly rejected claims that cellular phones are "safe." (39)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated repeatedly that the current (ANSI/IEEE) RF/MW safety standards protect only against thermal effects. (40)

Many scientists and physicians question the safety of exposure to RF/MW radiation. The CSIRO study, for example, notes that there are no clear cutoff levels at which low intensity RF/MW exposure has no effect, and that the results of ongoing studies will take years to analyze. (41)

Internationally, researchers and physicians have issued statements that biological effects from low-intensity RF/MW radiation exposure are scientifically established:

·         The 1998 Vienna-EMF Resolution (42)
·         The 2000 Salzburg Resolution on Mobile Telecommunication Base Stations (43)
·         The 2002 Catania Resolution (44)
·         The 2002 Freiburger Appeal (45)
·        The 2004 Report of the European Union's REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods) (46)
·         The 2004 Second Annual Report from Sweden's Radiation Protection Board (SSI) Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields Recent Research on Mobile Telephony and Health Risks (47)
·         Mobile Phones and Health 2004: Report by the Board of NRPB (The UK's National Radiological Protection Board) (48)
The county of Palm Beach, Florida, the City of Los Angeles, California, and the country of New Zealand have all prohibited cell phone base stations and antennas near schools due to safety concerns.  The British Columbia Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils [BCCPAC] passed a resolution in 2003 banning cellular antennae from schools and school grounds. This organization is comparable to the Parent Teachers Association (PTA) in the United States.  The resolution was directed to B.C. Ministry of Education, B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development, B.C. School Trustees Association, and B.C. Association of Municipalities.

US Government Information

In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has used safety guidelines for RF/MW radiation environmental exposure since 1985.

The FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF/MW radiation are derived from the recommendations of two organizations, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). In both cases, the recommendations were developed by scientific and engineering experts drawn from industry, government, and academia after extensive reviews of the scientific literature related to the biological effects of RF/MW radiation.

Many countries in Europe and elsewhere use exposure guidelines developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP safety limits are generally similar to those of the NCRP and IEEE, with a few exceptions. For example, ICNIRP recommends different exposure levels in the lower and upper frequency ranges and for localized exposure from certain products such as hand-held wireless telephones. Currently, the World Health Organization is working to provide a framework for international harmonization of RF/MW radiation safety standards.

In order to affirm conformity to standards regarding heating of tissue, measurements are time averaged over 0.1 hours [6 minutes].  This method eliminates any spikes in the readings.  Computer power bars have surge protectors to prevent damage to computers.  Fire fighters and emergency medical personnel do not!

The NCRP, IEEE, and ICNIRP all have identified a whole-body Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) value of 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg) as a threshold level of exposure at which harmful biological thermal effects due to tissue heating may occur.  Exposure guidelines in terms of field strength, power density and localized SAR were then derived from this threshold value. In addition, the NCRP, IEEE, and ICNIRP guidelines vary depending on the frequency of the RF/MW radiation exposure.  This is due to the finding that whole-body human absorption of RF/MW radiation varies with the frequency of the RF signal.  The most restrictive limits on whole-body exposure are in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where the human body absorbs RF/MW energy most efficiently.  For products that only expose part of the body, such as wireless phones, exposure limits in terms of SAR only are specified.

Similarly, the exposure limits used by the FCC are expressed in terms of SAR, electric and magnetic field strength, and power density for transmitters operating at frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz.  The specific values can be found in two FCC bulletins, OET Bulletins 56 and 65.

OET Bulletin 56, "Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" was designed to provide factual information to the public by answering some of the most commonly asked questions. It includes the latest information on FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF/MW radiation.  Further information and a downloadable version of Bulletin 56 can be found at: http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/FCC%20Bullet ... %20EMF.pdf

OET Bulletin 65, "Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" was prepared to provide assistance in determining whether proposed or existing transmitting facilities, operations or devices comply with limits for human exposure to RF/MW radiation adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  Further information and a downloadable version of Bulletin 65 can be found at: http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/FCC%20Bullet ... Towers.pdf

The FCC authorizes and licenses products, transmitters, and facilities that generate RF and microwave radiation. It has jurisdiction over all transmitting services in the U.S. except those specifically operated by the Federal Government.  Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the FCC has certain responsibilities to consider whether its actions will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, FCC approval and licensing of transmitters and facilities must be evaluated for significant impact on the environment.  Human exposure to RF radiation emitted by FCC-regulated transmitters is one of several factors that must be considered in such environmental evaluations. In 1996, the FCC revised its guidelines for RF/MW radiation exposure as a result of a multi-year proceeding and as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

For further information and answers to questions about the safety of RF/MW radiation from transmitters and facilities regulated by the FCC go to http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html.

Canadian Government Information

Industry Canada is the organization that sets regulatory requirements for electromagnetic spectrum management and radio equipment in Canada. Industry Canada establishes standards for equipment certification and, as part of these standards, developed RSS-102, which specifies permissible radiofrequency RF/MW radiation levels. For this purpose, Industry Canada adopted the limits outlined in Health Canada's Safety-Code 6, which is a guideline document for limiting RF exposure.  A downloadable version of "RSS-102 - Evaluation Procedure for Mobile and Portable Radio Transmitters with respect to Health Canada's Safety Code 6 for Exposure of Humans to Radio Frequency Fields", as well as additional information can be found at: http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/Safety%20Code%206.pdf

Safety Code 6 specifies the requirements for the use of radiation emitting devices. This Code replaces the previous Safety Code 6 - EHD-TR-160.  A downloadable version of "Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz TO 300 GHz – Safety Code 6", as well as further detailed information can be found at .http://new.iaff.org/HS/PDF/Non-Ionizing ... e%2080.pdf  

US and Canadian Legal Issues

Although some local and state governments have enacted rules and regulations about human exposure to RF/MW radiation in the past, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the United States Federal Government to control human exposure to RF/MW radiation.  In particular, Section 704 of the Act states that, "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." Further information on federal authority and FCC policy is available in a fact sheet from the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at http://www.fcc.gov/wtb.

In a recent opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge Stephen F. Williams, No. 03-1336 EMR Network v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, the Court upheld the FCC's decision not to initiate an inquiry on the need to revise its regulations to address non-thermal effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from the facilities and products subject to FCC regulation as EMR Network had requested in its September 2001 Petition for Inquiry.

At the request of the EMR Network, the EMR Policy Institute provided legal and research support for this appeal.  On January 13, 2005, a Petition for Rehearing en banc by the full panel of judges at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals was filed. Briefs, background documents and the DC Circuit decision are found at: http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/index.htm.

The Toronto Medical Officer of Health for the Toronto Board of Health recommended to Health Canada that public exposure limits for RF/MW radiation be made 100 times stricter; however the recommendation was not allowed, since, as in the US, only the Canadian federal government can regulate RF/MW radiation exposure level.

World Health Organization Efforts

In 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the International EMF Project to review the scientific literature and work towards resolution of health concerns over the use of RF/MW technology.  WHO maintains a Web site that provides addition information on this project and about RF/MW biological effects and research.  For further information go to http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/.

Conclusion

For decades, the International Association of Fire Fighters has been directly involved in protecting and promoting the health and safety of our membership.  However, we simply don't know at this time what the possible health consequences of long-term exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation of the type used by the cell phone base stations and antennas will be.  No one knows--the data just aren't there.  The chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection ICNIRP), one of the leading international organizations which formulated the current RF/MW radiation exposure guidelines, has stated that the guidelines include "no consideration regarding prudent avoidance" for health effects for which evidence is less than conclusive (49)

Again, fire department facilities, where fire fighters and emergency response personnel live and work are not the proper place for a technology which could endanger their health and safety

The only reasonable and responsible course is to conduct a study of the highest scientific merit and integrity on the RF/MW radiation health effects to our membership and, in the interim, oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.

http://www.iaff.org/hs/Resi/CellTowerFinal.htm

[Anonymous]

Radiation doesn't have to be ionizing to be dangerous. Your comments show that you really haven't a clue how EMF works, let alone the body's own intricate electrical system. It's not about it being "low" or "high", it's about the frequency. WiFi is designed to interfere with the human body's own electrical signals (Yes, the body is electrical), whether it be cordless phones, cell phones, smart meters, etc. It's the perfect invisible weapon, far worse than chemtrails or mercury in vaccines, etc.

No your comments show you do not know what you are talking, why did you not mention the frequencies of wifi?

There are 13 wifi g bands, they operate from 2.41GHz to 2.47GHz and their power range is from 70 milliwatts to 250 milliwatts.  Some of the signal will be absorbed by the body, most will pass through, thick material will absorb it completely because microwaves are line of site.

Mobile phones operate on frequencies 800MHz , 850MHz, 900MHz, 1.8GHz & 2.1GHz and their power levels range from 1watt to 6watts. Same thing, the lower frequencies pass through objects better thou have less bandwidth.

Now microwave ovens operate at a frequency of 2.35GHz, that is the precise frequency that microwaves resonate with water molecules, it causes them to vibrate and the food is heated by the water in food becoming hot. A microwave will not cook food that has no moisture as the microwaves pass right through it.

2.45GHz in wifi does not resonate with any of the molecules inside the body but they can be blocked by thick structures such as bone, similar to how skin will block sunlight, but there is no damage because the signal is very low. Yes the sun can burn skin, but it is like comparing the sun to a LED, it's not going cause you any harm.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Radiation doesn't have to be ionizing to be dangerous. Your comments show that you really haven't a clue how EMF works, let alone the body's own intricate electrical system. It's not about it being "low" or "high", it's about the frequency. WiFi is designed to interfere with the human body's own electrical signals (Yes, the body is electrical), whether it be cordless phones, cell phones, smart meters, etc. It's the perfect invisible weapon, far worse than chemtrails or mercury in vaccines, etc.

No your comments show you do not know what you are talking, why did you not mention the frequencies of wifi?

There are 13 wifi g bands, they operate from 2.41GHz to 2.47GHz and their power range is from 70 milliwatts to 250 milliwatts.  Some of the signal will be absorbed by the body, most will pass through, thick material will absorb it completely because microwaves are line of site.

Mobile phones operate on frequencies 800MHz , 850MHz, 900MHz, 1.8GHz & 2.1GHz and their power levels range from 1watt to 6watts. Same thing, the lower frequencies pass through objects better thou have less bandwidth.

Now microwave ovens operate at a frequency of 2.35GHz, that is the precise frequency that microwaves resonate with water molecules, it causes them to vibrate and the food is heated by the water in food becoming hot. A microwave will not cook food that has no moisture as the microwaves pass right through it.

2.45GHz in wifi does not resonate with any of the molecules inside the body but they can be blocked by thick structures such as bone, similar to how skin will block sunlight, but there is no damage because the signal is very low. Yes the sun can burn skin, but it is like comparing the sun to a LED, it's not going cause you any harm.

The microwave range isn't just microwave ovens; it includes cell phones and other devices, too.







And again, you are using the fallacious argument of "low." There is danger in both low and high frequencies (at both ends of the electromagnetic spectrum). You cannot use that argument.

Tell me something, bluejelly. At what frequency does the human body operate?

Some of the signal will be absorbed by the body, most will pass through, thick material will absorb it completely because microwaves are line of site.

And do you think in passing through the electrically charged human body that it won't disrupt it or cause electrical failure? Why do airlines require passengers to turn off their electrical devices in flight? Is the largely water-based human body stronger than a fuselage? What about pacemakers? How is WiFi able to suppress melatonin production in the brain, resulting in insomnia? How is WiFi able to perforate the blood-brain barrier?

[abduLMaria]

many years ago, the fact that i had given my word to a microwave radio company led me to work there, instead of Apple.

this led my career into military & domestic wireless R&D, and the related instrumentation.

somehow one engineer comes to mind, a fellow i worked with at an HP competitor (back when HP was an instrumentation company.)

he was not as multi-talented as the lead engineer in the lab, but he was still essential to the instrument we were working on, sort of a "holy grail" in the microwave instrument world - a Vector Network Analyzer.  basically an expensive Swiss Army knife type of instrument for microwave radio engineers.


his name was "Mo", short for Maurice.  if i had ever gone up to Mo with a 1 watt microwave amplifier and asked him to hold it next to his ear, his usual frown would have deepened into a Mega-frown.  he probably would have told our boss.  i probably would have been reprimanded and put on probation.

now that we have 100's of millions of people running around with medium-low microwave transmitters held next to their head, it's like a large open-loop medical experiment.  young people seem to adopt this technology the most readily.  it is easy to conclude that "it is safe".

nevertheless, i trust Mo's instincts.  in the lab he ALWAYS held active amplifiers at a distance, as did most of the other engineers.

it doesn't mean they were right about the biological impacts of RF & microwave radiation - but i respect their instincts, which tended towards caution.


personally, i think the '80's implementation of cell-phone worked best - you held a corded handset for talking, and the radio went in the trunk of your car.

i wouldn't be surprised to see a cell-phone company come out with a similar device, for marketing to people who are waking up to the potential hazards of RF radiation.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

CTV Disguised Infomercial as Investigative Report

Is professional ETHICS part of CTV's journalism?

Industry-funded and industry-affiliated infomercial was disguised as credible science by CTV News' investigation on Wi-Fi radiation in schools. This piece is a poor attempt to offer false security to the public by using a flawed protocol and skewed data.

It does not appear that CTV has researched or disclosed any conflict of interest with their expert, Mr. Karl Reardon who conducted the testing.

Mr. Reardon is/was:
A former Director and General Manager of Motorola
A current industry consultant (Planetworks and Radiowize) with close financial ties to the telecommunication industry
Collecting paycheques from consultation on cell tower installations
Author of a celltower guidebook for the Municipal Engineers
Holder of seven US and EU patents on wireless and data technology
Chief Technology Officer of Wireless Image whose sole business is the sale of mobile advertising solutions for cellphones.
Mr. Reardon's spouse, Mrs. Susanna Reardon, also "held senior management and technical positions in Rogers Cable TV, Telus " and professionally specializes in "Microwave wireless communication - point-to-point and point-to-multi-point, telecommunications networks and systems", wireless access system etc for "Industries: Cable TV, Telecom service providers, Internet Service Providers, wireless service providers... ".

Did CTV not bother to conduct proper "investigation" on your expert's conflict of interest before presenting this one-sided, crippled testing to stroke the backs of the wireless industry?

This might only be a quick story for your program, but this is an important issue to parents for the health of numerous children. To parents who have electrosensitive children, this is even a matter of whether the child can attend school or not.

Instead of engaging an engineer who makes his money from the wireless industry, CTV should have interviewed experts who understand the low-level effects of non-ionizing microwave radiation on human cells, such as Dr. Martin Blank, Dr. Leif Salford, Dr. Henry Lai, Dr. Andrew Goldworthy, Dr. Magda Havas, and Dr. Olle Johansson among others.

Posted on SafeinSchool.Org  6/27/2012

Source: http://www.safeinschool.org/2012/06/ctv ... _5266.html