Wide Web of diversions gets laptops evicted from lecture hall
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/08/AR2010030804915.html
Wide Web of diversions gets laptops evicted from lecture hall
By Daniel de Vise
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 9, 2010; A01
On a windy morning in downtown Washington, a hundred Georgetown Law students gathered in a hall for David Cole’s lecture on democracy and coercion. The desks were cluttered with books, Thermoses and half-eaten muffins.
Another item was noticeable in its absence: laptop computers. They were packed away under chairs, tucked into backpacks, powered down and forgotten.
Cole has banned laptops from his classes, compelling students to take notes the way their parents did: on paper.
A generation ago, academia embraced the laptop as the most welcome classroom innovation since the ballpoint pen. But during the past decade, it has evolved into a powerful distraction. Wireless Internet connections tempt students away from note-typing to e-mail, blogs, YouTube videos, sports scores, even online gaming — all the diversions of a home computer beamed into the classroom to compete with the professor for the student’s attention.
“This is like putting on every student’s desk, when you walk into class, five different magazines, several television shows, some shopping opportunities and a phone, and saying, ‘Look, if your mind wanders, feel free to pick any of these up and go with it,’ ” Cole said.
Professors have banned laptops from their classrooms at George Washington University, American University, the College of William and Mary and the University of Virginia, among many others. Last month, a physics professor at the University of Oklahoma poured liquid nitrogen onto a laptop and then shattered it on the floor, a warning to the digitally distracted. A student — of course — managed to capture the staged theatrics on video and drew a million hits on YouTube.
Cole was among the first professors in the Washington region to ban laptops, in the 2006-07 academic year. He found them an “attractive nuisance.” It was a bold decree: Georgetown had only recently begun requiring that first-year law students own laptops, after painstakingly upgrading the campus for wireless Internet access.
Just last week, a colleague of Cole’s unwittingly demonstrated how thoroughly the Internet has colonized the classroom. When Professor Peter Tague told students a canard about Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. stepping down, students promptly spread the news into the blogosphere. Later in class, Tague revealed that the tip was false, part of a lesson on credibility, according to the blog Above the Law.
The laptop computer, introduced in 1981, has become nearly obligatory on campus; some colleges require them. They are as essential to today’s student as a working stereo system was to their parents.
“My laptop lives with me. I’m always on it,” said Madeline Twomey, 20, a George Washington junior.
Twomey has used a computer since age 6 and had her first laptop at 15. She senses a widening generation gap. “Most professors, even at their youngest, they’re in their 30s,” she said. “They don’t understand how much it’s become a part of our lives.”
The ‘cone of distraction’
Professors say they do understand — all too well.
Diane E. Sieber, an associate professor of humanities at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has debated her students on the collegiate conceit of multitasking, the notion that today’s youths can fully attend to a lecture while intermittently toggling over to e-mail, ESPN and Facebook.
“It’s really serialized interruption,” Sieber said. “You start something, you stop it, you do something else, you stop it, which is something you’re doing if you’re switching back and forth between World of Warcraft and my class.”
One recent semester, Siebert tracked the grades of 17 student laptop addicts. At the end of the term, their average grade was 71 percent, “almost the same as the average for the students who didn’t come at all.”
Sieber believes that those students, in turn, divert the attention of the students behind them, a parabolic effect she calls the “cone of distraction.”
José A. Bowen, dean of the Meadows School of the Arts at Southern Methodist University, is removing computers from lecture halls and urging his colleagues to “teach naked” — without machines. Bowen says class time should be used for engaging discussion, something that reliance on technology discourages.
Cole surveyed one of his Georgetown classes anonymously after six weeks of laptop-free lectures. Four-fifths said they were more engaged in class discussion. Ninety-five percent admitted that they had used their laptops for “purposes other than taking notes.”
Even when used as glorified typewriters, laptops can turn students into witless stenographers, typing a lecture verbatim without listening or understanding.
“The breaking point for me was when I asked a student to comment on an issue, and he said, ‘Wait a minute, I want to open my computer,’ ” said David Goldfrank, a Georgetown history professor. “And I told him, ‘I don’t want to know what’s in your computer. I want to know what’s in your head.’ “
Some early attempts to ban laptops met resistance. In 2006, a group of law students at the University of Memphis complained to the American Bar Association, in vain. These days, the restriction is so common that most students take it in stride.
“I think that a professor’s well within reason to ban laptops,” said Cristina Cardenal, a 20-year-old Georgetown junior. “Professors aren’t stupid. They know what’s going on.” She also happens to believe that the rule benefits students, who should know better than to “pay as much money as we do to sit in a class and read a blog.”
Flipping a switch
Perhaps no college has experienced the good and bad of laptops like Bentley University in Waltham, Mass. In 1985, Bentley was the first college in the nation to require students to own portable computers. By the late 1990s, professors complained of distracted students. In 2000, the college installed a custom-designed system to let professors switch off Internet and e-mail access in their classrooms. They’ve flipped the switch “thousands of times,” said Bentley’s Phillip G. Knutel.
Universities have stopped short of disabling Internet access entirely, which might create a raft of new complaints from professors who routinely ask students to go online in class.
Plenty of professors still allow laptops. Siva Vaidhyanathan, an associate professor of media studies and law at U-Va., generally permits them in his classes. He remembers his own college diversion: reading newspapers surreptitiously on the floor beneath his desk. He believes that, ultimately, it is a professor’s job to hold the class’s attention.
“If students don’t want to pay attention, the laptop is the least of your problems,” he said.
Vaidhyanathan, an Internet scholar, senses a losing battle. In an era of iPhones and BlackBerrys, Internet-ready cellphones have become just as prevalent in classrooms as laptops, and equally capable of distraction. If professors had hoped to hermetically seal their teaching space by banning laptops, they might be about three years too late.
“The question ‘Laptop or not?’ isn’t as big a question as the question of a screen or not,” he said. “And, sitting in front of 200 students, I can’t really enforce a ban on anything.”
Please follow the Post’s Education coverage on Facebook, Twitter or our Education and Higher Education pages. Bookmark them!
Advocates sound alarm on cell phone radiation
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/03/07/1850453/valley-advocates-sound-alarm-on.html
LOWERING EXPOSURE
Tips for lowering exposure to cell-phone radiation:
* Use a hands-free device, such as an earpiece.
* Choose a phone with a low “specific absorption rate,” also called a SAR value.
* Limit cell-phone use.
Source: American Cancer Society
OTHER WEB SITES
* Environmental Working Group: www.ewg.org/cellphone-radiation
* CTIA — The Wireless Association: www.ctia.org
* Federal Communications Commission:www.fcc.gov/cgb/cellular.html
Some are certain that cell phone radiation triggers cancerous brain tumors.
Posted at 10:35 PM on Sunday, Mar. 07, 2010
By Barbara Anderson / The Fresno Bee
Mindy Brown is on a crusade to warn people about radiation from cell phones.
It started after her husband, Fresno State football coach Dan Brown, developed brain cancer. Before slipping into a coma a year ago, he said “make sure everybody knows,” she said. “I promised I would.”
Dan was 50 when he died March 13, 2009. Since his death, Brown has flown across the country to keep her word to Dan, the high school sweetheart she married, the father of their six children.
On Tuesday in Maine, she testified for legislation that would require a health warning on cell phones, similar to the “black box” label on cigarette packs. If passed, it would be the first in the country.
And in February, Brown, 51, spoke before an environmental commission in San Francisco in favor of an ordinance that would require radiation levels emitted by cell phones to be printed on packaging. A similar state law has been proposed.
Brown’s activism is raising awareness about a controversial issue that has been percolating for years but is now heating up as lawmakers debate whether it’s time to act.
Brown has no doubt that cell-phone radiation triggers cancerous brain tumors. “I’m so 100% sure … I’d bet my life on it,” she said.
But the scientific community is divided over health effects of the low levels of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the phones. The cell-phone industry maintains the phones are safe. In the end, researchers say, the safety debate likely will go on for years, while more and more people use the phones.
The science behind the phone
For consumers, it all can be confusing.
The phones are ubiquitous today. About 4.6 billion people — more than half the world’s population — have cell phones, according to the International Telecommunications Union. More than 276 million people in the United States are wireless subscribers, according to CTIA-The Wireless Association, an industry group.
But the phones are relatively new devices, having been in use in the United States only about the past two decades — not enough time for people to have long-term experience with them.
Cell phones are actually two-way radios. The phones change a voice into radio waves or radio-frequency energy, according to the federal Food and Drug Administration Web site. Other everyday products — televisions, pagers, radios and cordless phones — do the same thing.
Radio frequencies are part of the electromagnetic spectrum, a range of radiation energy that includes everything from light to X-rays.
The electromagnetic radiation from cell phones is in the microwave range, though far less powerful than emissions from a microwave oven.
And that kind of radiation from cell phones doesn’t cause damage to atoms and molecules, the FDA says. In that respect, it’s similar to visible and infrared light.
Some scientists, however, say holding cell phones against the head — and often for long periods — allows enough radiation from the phones to have an effect on cells. One theory: The radiation is strong enough to cause the body to produce destructive molecules known as “free radicals” that can damage DNA, the hereditary material in humans.
Others say the phones simply don’t give off enough radiation to cause DNA damage.
There is little indication the controversy will end soon.
“Cell phones have become the high-tension lines of our time,” said Dr. Paul Fisher, a Bay Area neurologist, referring to concerns that power lines cause cancer. And it’s likely the cell-phone debate will have as long a life, he said. Fears about high-power lines persist after 40 years of studies that have yet to prove a direct link, he said.
Fisher said it’s premature to say that cell phones are related to brain tumors. A professor of neurology and pediatrics at Stanford and Children’s Hospital, he is working on summarizing research that has been done on cell phones and brain tumors for a paper he hopes will be published this year.
Most studies don’t back up the cancer fears, Fisher said, citing a recent Scandinavian study that looked at brain-tumor rates from the last 30 years and found no significant change in the rates. After three decades, if there were a relationship between cell phones and brain tumors, you would expect to see it, he said.
CTIA declined to be interviewed, but John Walls, vice president of public affairs, issued a written statement that said in part: “The peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices, within the limits established by the FCC, do not pose a public-health risk or cause any adverse health effects.”
Debate over risks
But others say the risks from using cell phones are real.
“People who use cell phones for 10 years or more have a higher rate of cancer of the brain,” said Martin Blank, associate professor of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University. And he said the research shows the increase is five times the rate for people who start using a cell phone as teenagers.
Blank said the reason that studies into possible links between cell phones and brain cancer are so contradictory: “Those who find effects are more likely to be independently funded. Those that are funded by industry are more likely to find no effects.”
The National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society say most studies have not shown a possible relationship between brain tumors and cell-phone use — but both agencies recommend more research.
One worry is the time people spend on cell phones. The phones’ convenience makes them hard for users to hang up.
In the first half of 2008, cell-phone users in the United States spent on average 13 hours a month talking on their phones, according to CTIA. But surfing the Internet topped it — computer users spent more than 26 hours per month on the Internet in May 2008, according to The Nielsen Company.
“It’s the excessive [cell phone] use that’s resulting in these elevations in brain tumors,” said Dr. David Carpenter, an expert in electromagnetic fields who has been director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany since 1998.
For Brown, the connection seems clear between her husband’s death and his cell-phone use.
Brown hasn’t added up the minutes Dan spent on a cell phone, but in his 12 years on the Bulldogs’ coaching team — the last seven as defensive coordinator — he constantly had a phone to his ear, she said. He talked to recruiters, coaches, football boosters, she said.
“My husband would be here still, I swear to you, if he hadn’t used a cell phone,” Brown said.
Fisher of Stanford said it’s understandable to search for a cause for brain cancer — but no one knows what causes it. There are a lot of reasons why people should limit their cell-phone use, he said, but to prevent brain cancer is not among them.
But Brown doesn’t believe it’s a coincidence that the people she met while Dan was being treated bore tell-tale scars from brain surgery on the side of their heads where they held their cell phones, she said. “That was enough evidence for me.”
She’s not the only one who believes there is a connection.
Andy Solomon, 41, of Fresno, is convinced the hours he spent talking on a cell phone caused a brain tumor to turn cancerous. He was diagnosed in October 2007. A tumor was next to his left ear — the side of his head where he held his cell phone, he said.
A commercial real-estate agent, Solomon has owned a cell phone since 1991. He used to talk almost nonstop while in his car. “I needed to know every shopping center in every town. I would have the phone to my ear driving,” he said.
He has had two brain surgeries, radiation, chemotherapy and been a participant in two clinical trials to remove the tumor. Late last month, he learned a brain scan showed a new brain tumor had formed.
Solomon and his wife, Monique, have two daughters, 11 and 7. Their main concern is for the millions of children who now carry cell phones and for the hours they spend on the phones.
Use among children
The increasing use of cell phones by children adds to the sense of urgency for those who believe they cause cancer.
Five years ago, fewer than half of children between ages 8 and 18 had cell phones; now two-thirds of them have the phones, according to a report by the nonprofit The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Children’s skulls are thinner, making them more susceptible to radiation, said Renee Sharp, director of the California office of the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C-based environmental advocacy organization.
“Children’s brains actually absorb twice as much radiation as adults’ brains,” Sharp said.
Sharp said the standard that the government uses to rate radiation levels doesn’t consider children. It’s outdated and needs to be lowered, she said. The lower the rate, the lower the exposure to electromagnetic energy.
The standard — called the specific absorption rate, or SAR — measures how much radio-frequency energy is absorbed by the body. In the United States, the rate was set in 1996 by the Federal Communications Commission at 1.6 watts per kilogram, which is averaged over 1 gram of body tissue.
The FCC considers cell phones at 1.6 watts per kilogram or lower to be safe for use. In comparison, a Bluetooth ear piece has a level of about 0.001, or less than one-thousandth of the limit for a cell phone, according to the American Cancer Society.
Bruce Romano, associate chief in the FCC office of engineering and technology, said the agency continues to monitor radiation studies, but currently there is no formal effort to change the standards.
The Environmental Working Group is sponsoring California legislation by state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, to require cell phones sold in the state to plainly display radiation levels, she said. San Francisco is considering a similar ordinance.
Speaking out
Brown is a proponent of making radiation levels readily apparent on cell phone packaging.
She believes a phone Dan used for years had a radiation level that would have been off the chart. When he used the phone, his ear turned red after only a few minutes from the heat the phone generated, she said.
At the time, Brown said, she and Dan didn’t know cell phones emitted radiation, and she half-joked to him that the “phone is going to fry your brain.”
For a while after Dan’s death, she was in a state of disbelief and anger, she said. She would walk up to strangers talking on cell phones to tell them about radiation risks. The reaction often wasn’t friendly, she said.
After testifying in Maine, Brown said: “I feel like a burden has been lifted off my shoulder. I passed on the baton to a bigger force that can make a bigger difference than just me trying to talk to people.”
But she won’t stop until the cell-phone industry puts warnings on their products, she said.
She is on a mission, propelled by a promise.
Electrosensitivity: a first person perspective
Electrosensitivity: a first person perspective
Dr. David Fancy
Part of a presentation delivered in the context of Lakehead University’s research and innovation week, February 2010, at Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.
You’ll notice from my credentials, that although I am a researcher and academic, I am not trained in scientific research. I would not be here this evening if I had not, one day in 2001, had an odd experience. It was a simple and unremarkable experience, and yet one that was a harbinger of many challenges to come. At the time, I was writing my doctoral dissertation on the politics of representation of ethnicity in contemporary French theatre. I was spending a lot of time on my computer, a laptop. A few months into an intense writing phase, I noticed that my left hand would get sore by the end of the day. Writer’s hand, repetitive strain injury, I thought. Before long however, my left hand was sore earlier and earlier in the day. Why my left hand, I wondered? And why did the soreness go away approximately an hour after I finished typing. And why did that same hand not bother me when I was playing guitar to relax in the evening?
Pretty soon, I couldn’t type at all on the laptop. And I had an inkling that it may have had something to do with the computer itself, but I wasn’t sure. Around the same time I noticed a slight pain in my chest when I was in front of one of those older CRT or cathode ray tube televisions. A few months after I noticed this, I could only watch television for about an hour before in my chest made me have to stop. By this time I had installed an external keyboard to the laptop with a USB cable, so I was no longer typing directly over the body of the laptop. After I made this adjustment the pain was entirely gone in my previously sore hand when typing. It became clear that there was some correlation between my increasing inability to watch television, the pain that occurred when I was typing with a laptop, and the whistling in my ear that I started experiencing while speaking on a portable phone. But what was the correlation, the connection between all these experiences?
I moved to Montreal to teach at Concordia University. I found myself unable to sleep very well in my new apartment. I figured it was just an adjustment to a new environment. I purchased a used computer: one of those Apple desktops with a CRT screen in it. On the third day in my new apartment, I spent eight hours working on this computer. Suddenly, it was as if some kind of switch had flipped in me. I was, seemingly overnight, now unable to tolerate any form of electromagnetic emission without experiencing serious discomfort or pain: I could no longer use a portable phone; I didn’t have a cell phone of my own but could no longer tolerate being in a room when a phone was on; the subway made me dizzy and nauseous; I couldn’t stand near a toaster, blender, or washing machine; walking under even small power lines that ran along residential streets became an exercise in headaches and rapidly onset dizziness; my extremities became numb when I approached any kind of electrical device, or one that emitted any communications signal.
What on earth was going on?
I contacted some kind individuals in Ottawa who had a website discussing electrical sensitivity, and also ran a business selling meters to measure various forms of electromagnetic emissions. I purchased a Gauss meter to measure electromagnetic fields. I discovered a 120 mG field over the left-hand side of the laptop I had been using, but only a 5 mG field over the right hand side of that same laptop. 120mG: sore hand; 5mG hand not sore. An aha moment. The new apartment I was living in had a 25 mG electromagnetic field in it. I began doing research and discovered that more than 0.6 mG of an electromagnetic field was bioactive: it generated some kind of effect on living systems. 0.6 mG bioactive, 25 mG ambient in the apartment. 120 mG over the computer. Another Aha moment. Did these high levels have something to do with the transformer on the service pole outside my front window? Was this having an impact on my sleep and somehow contributing to the generalized pain and discomfort I was experiencing on an increasing basis? The landlord told me one day about the apartment’s previous occupants, a single mother and her child. The child, 3 years old, who had lived in the apartment since she was born, had died of leukemia 6 months previously. The mother had left Montreal to return to France to live with her parents. Was this perhaps connected as well?
The early stages of severe electrical sensitivity are marked by many of these kinds of questions. A lot of consideration is also given to how you should choose to communicate the reality of your experience to those around you: your family, your physician, your employer. Although I never doubted my own lucidity or sanity in the face of my experience, I did not for a second assume that certain individuals wouldn’t make quick assumptions about my mental acuity, judge a propensity for paranoia, for hypochondria, etc.
For example, a quick websearch to the world health Organization’s fact-sheet on Electrosensitivity reveals that legitimate sensitivity to electromagnetic fields does not exist. Reported sensitivity by individuals is described as ‘reputed sensitivity,’ and real causes for people’s problems—according to the WHO—may include flickers from fluorescent lights affecting eyesight, poor ergonomic design of computer workspaces, air quality, or general stress. In a revealing paragraph the WHO fact sheet asserts that: “There are also some indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself.” In an interesting twist, despite their belief that there is no correlation between EMFs and people’s ‘reputed sensitivity’, and despite the fact that they assert that it is not a real syndrome, the WHO nonetheless maintains the use of the term ‘Electro hypersensitivity” to describe the “phenomenon” of people assuming that they are being affected by fields. Why deny the syndrome, but continue to use the name attributed by people to their genuine experience?
If one follows the logical implications of the argument on the factsheet, the continued use of the term ‘electrical hypersensitivity’ allows the WHO to perform two rhetorical operations simultaneously. On the one hand, by designating certain people as electro-hypersensitive, the WHO protects itself from protest that the organization is not acknowledging the reality of the ‘phenomenon’. On the other hand, the term electro-hypersensitive, used by people worldwide attempting to draw attention to the reality of their suffering, is remobilized by the WHO to essentially indicate individuals who are at best very wrong, and at worst, in need of psychiatric intervention. The term electrohypersensitive becomes a logical trap of semantic exclusion: according to the WHO, even if you call yourself electrohypersensitive, identify as one, then you’re clearly ‘sick in the head.’
I’ll leave it to active researchers in the field such as Henry Lai and Magda Havas to discuss the design flaws in various studies used to support the WHO’s assertions. Think though for example of the recent and infamous Exeter study, in which a number of participants became so ill from repeated provocation exposures from electromagnetic emissions that they quit the study. These people were not counted in the final tabulation of results. What is particularly evident, however, is that the WHO’s assertions carry a lot of weight internationally. They are at the top of a medical and regulatory foodchain that is consulted by provincial healthcare policymakers who write policy that is in turn consulted by employers, insurers and physicians when deciding how to manage ill individuals reporting the kind of symptomology experienced by the electrically sensitive.
This general state of affairs results, in Canada at least, in a person needing to be particularly careful about how they approach disclosing the reality of their condition to those around them. Consider for example the case of a young man in his late 20s from Milton, Ontario, a young man with an MBA from Sheridan who was 3rd in sales nationally for a major international food services company. He became electrically sensitive from exposure to a new hand-held wireless stocking device his employers required him to carry from store to store for the purposes of measuring inventory. Complaining of headaches and pain that he attributed to the new technology, his physician referred him to a psychiatrist and, not knowing any better, he went. The psychiatrist declared him mentally incompetent. He has been rejected by his family as a hypochondriac, and can no longer work. He ran out of money and lived on the streets and in a shelter for six months. The only way he is currently eligible for socially assisted housing is if he can demonstrate to his social worker that he is taking the daily doses of multiple anti-psychotics prescribed to him by the psychiatrist. Needless to say he has become highly skilled at hiding pills under his tongue, then spitting them out when no-one is looking.
Consider the case of the woman from Welland, Ontario who was initially rendered electro hypersensitive sensitive from working in a call centre. She was hospitalized for the pain she was experiencing in the enteric nervous system in her stomach that flared up when a new cell tower was installed next to her house. The doctors would not acquiesce to her requests for removal of a wireless node outside her hospital room. They assumed she was delusional to think that there could be a relationship between the wireless emissions and her complaint. Instead, they simply plied her with more and stronger painkillers. The pain continued, and she finally died in hospital from a morphine overdose. Official cause of death: complications associated with acute liver failure.
Consider the family in Simcoe, Ontario who had to sell their million dollar century home, a family heirloom, when the husband, an accountant, started losing consciousness shortly after six cell antennae were placed on a water tower adjacent to their property. These people have become pariahs in their community. The man has been ridiculed in the press and quite literally spat on in the street for having brought his concern to the town council. It seems he also had the audacity to suggest that the new antennae were perhaps related to the wave of 12 new cancers that struck the 14 houses nearest the antenna in the two years following their installation.
These are some of the dozens if not hundreds of people I’ve been in contact with over the past eight years: those unable to live in their homes, attend school, go to work, be in public: a whole hidden tribe of nomads forced into itinerancy, isolation, and frequently, extreme poverty. These refugees are forced into peripatetic and difficult journeys to find low-exposure zones, to seek out a doctor who understands, and to continually resuscitate the hope for some kind of eventual recovery.
Electrical sensitivity manifests differently for different individuals, and is best understood as being on a continuum of severity, with the cases I’ve just described being on the worse end of the scale. But how many more Canadians are experiencing less extreme immediate symptoms from general electrical sensitivity, given that the accepted safe exposure levels are so far above what actually generates biological effects? Ear aches from the cell phone, unexplained dizziness, blood sugar imbalances, hyperactivity, neuralgia, unease, headaches, nausea, lack of coordination while driving, the gradual development of degenerative disease. As Magda has emphasized, rough calculations suggest that significant proportions of the population are, in one way or another, electrically sensitive.
What is preventing Health Canada and other national and international regulatory bodies from recognizing the reality of the situation? It turns out the answer is a particularly predictable one: follow the money trail.
Canadian activists Sharon and Denis Noble have very closely examined the funding sources behind the scientific literature that Health Canada depends upon to justify its current standards. In a letter to the Auditor General, the Nobles trace how in case after case the authors of the scientific literature that Health Canada draw upon are in situations of conflict of interest.
One author of a study is a director of a research centre founded by monies from the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, a cell phone industry lobby group. This author is also is also a director of the Canadian branch of the Interphone study. Canada is the only one of the 13 participating countries whose project is funded by the wireless association. Another author was the editor of Radiation Research: only one positive paper on microwave genotoxicity has appeared in Radiation Research…. 80% of the papers that deny biological and health affects (17 out of 21) published in Radiation Research were paid for by either the industry or the U.S. Air Force. And it goes on: studies funded by industry and the military consistently showing no effects to electromagnetic pollution to human health. Health Canada responds to the Noble’s charges of conflict of interest by affirming: “The fact that some studies are either directly or indirectly funded, in whole or in part, from the wireless industry or any other sources does not constitute a valid reason to dismiss these research findings outright.” Unfortunately for them, peer reviewed statistical analysis has demonstrated that funding sources have a statistically significant effect on the positive or negative outcome of studies on the biological effects of radiofrequency. Health Canada continues to support the use of industry-funded research, arguing that the number of studies which show no biological harm outnumber those showing harm. Therefore, using the “weight of evidence” argument based on faulty research, Health Canada continues the collusion that marks the current dominant discourse on the subject. In a private meeting with Beth Pieterson, the Director General of the Research and Radiation Protectorate of Health Canada, she acknowledged to me the oddity of the apparently extreme divergence of opinion between the two opposing scientific camps. Ms Pieterson had no particular response to this, and despite entreaties, Health Canada has not been willing to invest in a dialogue between opposing scientific camps.
This information regarding conflict of interest has been circulated widely to journalists and yet very little attention is paid to this pervasive health issue in the media (and this despite the fact that I know several cameramen who attribute the cancer in their brains or face to the electromagnetic fields emitted by the cameras on their shoulder). Does this have anything to do with the fact that most media outlets are either owned and run by wireless providers, or depend heavily on their sponsorship and advertising? Which journalists and media outlets are asking these questions? Have we all become so inured to industry fudging of science in the asbestos, cigarette and thalidomide cases that the fearful media are simply going to watch this happen, like a car crash in slow motion?
And yet there is some hope for change internationally:
The legal systems in various countries have begun awarding damages to individuals injured by electromagnetic pollution, regardless of the assertions of governments regarding the alleged scientific impossibility of these kinds of injury. The Alaskan Supreme Court awarded money to an individual who was injured by radiofrequency levels below the so-called safe threshold.
Lloyds of London stopped insuring most wireless and cell companies in the late 1990s when the company began to take the 50 years of research on the subject seriously. This suggests that at some point in the future, the litigation costs will become such a liability that investors will flee unsafe technologies. This kind of economic dynamic is what finally brought to light awareness of the perils of smoking. Various class action suits against cell phone providers are working their way through the courts in the United States and elsewhere.
Canadian Human Rights Commission has published a report on its website declaring environmental sensitivity to be a disability on par with sightlessness, being constrained to a wheelchair, or any other more recognized form of disability. Specific mention is made of electrical sensitivity. If they have the time and the money above and beyond simple survival, perhaps electrically hypersensitive individuals can claim human rights abuse when they are unwilling consigned to a psych ward, or left fending for food in the streets or in the woods.
Activist groups are springing up all over the world. The organization that I helped found sends out daily news summaries of research and media reports on the topic, and regularly stages front line intervention and support for Canadian living with electrical sensitivity.
Above everything, an important aspect of the experience is that the human body wants to be well. It is simply a question of removing offended incitants, supporting the immune system and detoxifying the body. My own condition became increasingly worse, to the point where I lived in an unheated camper trailer on a 120 acre woodlot outside of St Catharines for 2 years. At that point I was unable to be anywhere in proximity to wireless, cell signals and just plain old 60 htz. Although I did not miss a day of work through this entire period, although generated enough research to receive tenure and promotion, received a SSHRC grant, won a national playwrighting prize and a major teaching award, I also spent 5 years in continuous pain, numbness, nausea, and brain fog. I was unable to fly, to drive for more than 20 minutes, and was very socially isolated. I would work on my computer with a 20 foot USB extension cable to a keyboard and use a data projector on the other side of the room to shine a screen on the wall in front of me. Email became an exercise in major pain. And yet with a lot of research, the collaboration of an open-minded MD and 2 very good naturopaths I was able to detoxify, support my immune system, and now am significantly better. I spend a lot of time trying to direct other electrosensitive people to the kinds of resources that they can also use to improve their condition and begin living again.
And yet, despite these beginnings of change, much more work has to be done.
First of all, and obviously, levels of electromagnetic pollution have to be reduced to biocompatible levels and different technologies have to be developed. That is a no-brainer.
Only very few places in Canada actually provide anything approximating recognition for electrical sensitivity or acknowledgement that other health complaints may result from exposure. Women’s College Hospital in Toronto has an Environmental Health clinic where dozens of people I’m familiar with have gone to be told by the physicians there that they are electrically sensitive. However, when interviewed by the media, these same physicians will under-report the number of individuals they deal with, suggesting instead that they’ve only seen a handful of cases over the past years. Why this mendacity about the prevalence of the condition? Who benefits from this? Physicians need to be further educated about the risks of electromagnetic exposure, and emergency medical services have to be provided for those suffering from extreme electrical sensitivity. Many people with electrical sensitivity cannot spend time indoors, let alone go to a doctor’s office.
More research needs to be done on the complexifying effects that heavy metals, pesticides, and other pollutants in the human body have on the development of electro hypersensitivity. A majority of Swedish electrohypersensitives affirm that the presence of mercury amalgam fillings contributed to the onset their condition.
For people with electrical hypersensitivity, even convincing the experts onside sometimes is a challenge. Consider David Carpenter, co-editor of the BioInitiatve report and a professor of environmental health sciences and biomedical sciences at the University at Albany, State University of New York, who often warns against the dangers of EMFs. He’s quoted in the LA Times from the 15th of February this year as saying that although he believes that EMFs can cause cancer and possibly neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s and Lou Gehrig’s disease, he asserts that there’s no good evidence that cellphones can cause headaches and other vague complaints: “I’m not sure electrosensitivity is real.”
And until these kinds of attitudes change, the amount of unheralded and undiagnosed suffering from this currently misunderstood condition will continue unabated.
Web site www.weepinitiative.org e-mail contactweep@weepinitiative.org
To sign up for WEEP News: newssignup@weepinitiative.org (provide name and e-mail address)
W.E.E.P. – The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution
Cancer Risk of Cell Phones at Issue in Legislative Hearing
Thank you to Angela Flynn for bringing this to our attention.
| Cancer Risk of Cell Phones at Issue in Legislative Hearing | |||||
| 03/02/2010 Reported By: A.J. Higgins | |||||
| Maine would become the first state to require warning labels on cell phones, under a bill before state lawmakers. Supporters say consumers should be warned that cell phones can cause brain cancer, but opponents argue that there is no proof of such a link. | |||||
|
|||||
| The bill before the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee would require warning labels on cell phones, and cell phone packaging sold in Maine.
“People need to know the risk they are incurring when they hold cell phones to their heads and give them to their children — they are radiation emitting devices,” said state Rep. Andrea Boland of Sanford, who sponsored the bill. Boland says the messaging would alert users to the risks of electromagnetic radiation and advise that children and pregnant women should keep the devices away from their heads and bodies. “We have about 940,000 cell phone customers in Maine, and approximately 14,000 live births a year,” she said. “The average cost of brain tumor surgery is $250,000.” For others who testified at the committee hearing, the costs are immeasurable. “The summer before last I was diagnosed with a brain tumor,” said San Francisco businessman Alan Marx. “I had a craniotomy, my skull was cut open, and a golf-ball sized tumor was removed from my brain. It was malignant, and it was my death sentence.” Marx has dedicated what remains of his life to warning people against the dangers posed by cell phone use. He and other supporters of Boland’s bill were influenced by a 2006 study by the Swedish National Institute for Working Life that shows a correlation between brain tumors and heavy cellphone use. Marx says he has paid dearly for his reliance on a cell phone as part of his daily routine. “My profession is real estate development and sales,” he said. “I used the cell phone for over 20 years for about 10,000 lifetime hours, I always held my phone to my right ear, and my tumor is on the right side of my head. It’s ironic that the very thing that aided me to do my business ruined my ability to do business, and will kill me.” But some public health officials, including Dr. Dora Anne Mills of the Maine Center for Disease Control and prevention, say the evidence of a link between cell phone use and brain cancer is lacking. “At this point in time we believe the preponderance of evidence does not suggest a defined brain cancer or other cancer risk associated with use of cell phones,” Mills said. The bill is also opposed by the cell phone industry. “Impartial experts, as we’ve heard, say that the body of scientific evidence does not include a public health risk caused by the low level of RF energy emitted by cell phones and mobile devices,” said Eric Ebenstein of TechAmerica, which represents about 1,200 firms in communications-related industries. Ebenstein says the federal government has already set mandatory safety limits on RF energy emissions from wireless devices sold the U.S. “Based on the expertise and credibility of some of our most valued and respected standard-setting bodies requiring companies to add confusing warning labels is unnecessary and misleading,” he said. But sponsor Andrea Boland says Maine should learn from the painful history of tobacco. “Decades ago, I know that people stood where I stand today, asking for warning labels on cigarettes. The tobacco industry made all the same arguments, and was able to delay enactment, to the grief and economic costs of our people,” she said. The legislative panel is expected to continue work on the cell phone bill next week. |
|||||
3G Capable Smart Phones May Reduce Cumulative Exposure To Electromagnetic Radiation
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 03. 2.10
There is no doubt in my mind that cell phone texting or emailing are among the most dangerous driving distractions you can intentionally partake of. (Sure, you could worsen things by driving, drinking, speeding, and texting at the same time but I’m talking about just the hazards specific to cell phone use.)
Inspired by Jessica’s recent post on cell phone cancer causation risk, I decided to do some cell phone EMF measurements (as pictured above) and also to do some thought experiments on this subject. What I learned was surprising.
We’re upgrading from older phones and I’m concerned about whether the more power-consumptive and visually oriented 3G “smart phones” offer more or less exposure to electromagnetic radiation. (I’d no more rely on Environmental Working Group measurements of cell phone risk than I would rely on Tea Partiers for insights into climate risk.)
What I found, comparing my 2-year old LG Rumor to my daughter’s brand new smart phone, the Palm Pre, is that when in buzz-only mode, both tranceiving phones put out between 1.5 to 2 mG when they “rang.” This was with the field strength meter held right alongside the phone, as in the photo above, with sensor parallel to antenna.
Set for max volume ring mode, however, the oldish LG Rumor put out 8 to 11 mG while the brand new Pre, held at approximately the same side-to-side distance from the meter, put out 3 to 5 mG when ringing. Right where you want it to be to be safe.
I next measured mG output with the tranceiving phone set to max speaker volume and the field strength meter held up close to each tranceiving phone speaker, as if the field strength meter were an ear.
The person calling – using the transponding phone – was asked to speak loudly, like those people walking down a busy city street almost shouting into their phone to make sure they are heard over the noise. (The ones who resemble schizophrenics.) My LG Rumor’s mG output varied between 5 and 15 mG as the transponding phone user’s voice modulated. An order of magnitude higher exposure than I’d prefer.
The new Pre’s output when receiving an incoming call, with the caller talking loudly, varied between 3 and 5 mG – much better – and I was able to hear what was being said clearly. The result of just better speakers maybe.
Caveat.
Field strength falls off with the inverse square of distance from the actual source of EMF in a cell phone (mainly the sound driver in this case), just like brightness of light does with distance from its source. A centimeter difference in measurement distance from the cell phone speaker makes a very large difference in the mG reading.
To do this job right you’d have to integrate the EMF exposure readings over a curve representing how far listeners actually hold the phone from their ear, as a function of how loud the caller is talking, and how loud the background noise is, and how good the phone speaker is. You’d have to do it many times for each model and average for ages and language skills: to reflect how the behavioral aspect affects exposure.
Insights and conclusions.
I’m glad my daughter’s new phone seems to put out a bit less radiation than mine does when she is “calling” someone.
The more important learning, I believe, was the insight that the smart phone in 3G mode is a highly visually oriented design that takes you away from talking and pulls you into a more computer-like interface, where speaker phone mode seems to make more intuitive sense and the radiation source is farther from your head.
A whole lotta texting and push emailing going on there. These operations take place in the 1.5 tyo 2 mG range; and the exposure is primarily to one’s hand instead of to the ear and cranium or to the reproductive organs.
The transition to smart phone technology overall, iPhones being just one expression of that trend, means less phone-to-head EMF exposure while walking around or sitting at home.
However – and this is a very big deal ‘however’ – if legislators make it illegal to do the visual cell phone things while driving (texting, Googling, & emailing) but do not make cell phone talking come under a similar regulatory regime, they may be inadvertently increasing cranial exposure to electromagnetic radiation.
I can’t yet decide whether speaker phone mode with a smart phone is an intermediate risk factor in driving. Probably so. The fact that these have built in GPS systems and louder, clearer speakers to offer the driving directions while you watch where you are going is a definite plus.
Lab rats with cellphones?
Our wireless lifestyle is making us all unwitting test subjects.
By Christopher Ketcham
February 23, 2010
We love our digital gadgets — “magic” devices that define cool and promise to remake our lives for the better. But there is growing evidence of a dark side to the techno-magic. Your cellphone, and any other wireless device that depends on electromagnetic (EM) microwave radiation to function, may be hazardous to your health.
Most of the bad news comes from major labs and research institutions in Europe. What they’re reporting is that using cellphones and Wi-Fi transmitters — which operate using similar frequencies — can have biological effects on the brain and body.
The scientific debate remains heated and far from resolved, as the Health section in The Times reported last week. But the research to date suggests a number of chilling possibilities as to what EM radiation may be doing to us.
For example, in 2008, neuroscientists at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia strapped Nokia phones to subjects’ heads, then turned the phones on and off. On — the brain’s alpha waves spiked. Off — the brain settled. The researchers speculated that the effect was the result of the brain “concentrating to overcome the electrical interference in brain circuits caused by the pulsed microwave radiation.”
Swedish neuro-oncologist Leif Salford, chairman of the department of neurosurgery at Lund University, has found that cellphone radiation kills brain cells in rats, especially those cells associated with memory and learning. The damage occurred after an exposure of just two hours. In duplicating earlier research, Salford also found that cellphone microwaves produce holes in the barrier between the circulatory system and the brain in rats. One potential outcome, according to Salford, is dementia.
Meanwhile, Austrian researchers reported in 2004 that cellphone radiation can induce double-strand breaks in DNA, one of the undisputed causes of cancer.
So why isn’t this a bigger issue in the U.S.? Partly because there are countervailing studies and other scientists telling us not to be worried, that the risks are low or that we just don’t know enough to say that the risks are real.
Consider the biggest study being done on the question of whether cellphones cause cancers of the brain, mouth and ear — the 13-country Interphone study conducted under the auspices of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France. The study’s epidemiologists have looked at cancer patients and worked backward to establish cellphone habits.
The study, alas, has been fraught with controversy. The multinational researchers — U.S. scientists conspicuously not among them — have fallen into warring camps, and the full study has not been released.
However, pieces of the study have been made public. One Interphone study, for example, found that after a decade of cellphone use, the chance of getting a brain tumor goes up as much as 40% for adults. Another Interphone study reported a nearly 300% increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the acoustic nerve. But still other Interphone researchers say their data show no increase in brain tumors — or any tumor — caused by cellphone use.
The cellphone industry lobby, CTIA — the Wireless Assn., recently said in a statement that “peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk.” Meanwhile, watchdog groups keep it vague. “The available science,” says the Food and Drug Administration, “does not allow us to conclude that mobile phones are absolutely safe, or that they are unsafe.”
So whom to believe, and what to do?
First, consider research done by Henry Lai, a biologist at the University of Washington: Only 25% of studies funded by the wireless industry show some type of biological effect from microwave radiation. Independently funded studies, however, are far more damning: 75% of those studies — free of industry influence — show a bioeffect. Some 30% of funding for the Interphone research was provided by industry, which critics say has resulted in a favorable skewing of some Interphone data.
Obviously, we need to demand more independent research into microwave radiation. In the meantime, we should also treat cellphones and other wireless gadgets with less adoration and more suspicion, and as individuals we may want to follow the lead of many nations and regulate the way we use them for ourselves.
For example, Belgium, France, Finland, Germany, Russia and Israel have publicly discouraged use of cellphones by children. (Independent research in Sweden last year concluded there was an astonishing 420% increased chance of getting brain cancer for cellphone users who were teenagers or younger when they first started using their phones.) France has gone so far as to issue a generalized national cellphone health warning, banned cellphones in elementary schools and considered outlawing marketing the phones to children.
The personal equivalent? For starters, don’t get rid of your land line. Buy a hands-free device; keep your cellphone away from your head, face and neck. Don’t carry it in your pocket for hours on end(there’s some evidence cellphones aren’t good for your sperm count).
Salford, the neuro-oncologist, has called the unregulated use of cellphones by 4.5 billion people worldwide “the largest human biological experiment ever.” It’s only common sense to do what you can to take yourself out of the guinea pig pool.
Christopher Ketcham is the author of “Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health” in February’s GQ.
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
Film: Wireless technology endangers our health
Big shout out to Angela Flynn for providing the following:
the wireless web
| http://portlandobserver.com/?p=830
Written on February 17, 2010 at 6:21 pm by admin Filed under A&E, Consumer News, Features, Health, International, Movie Review, National, News one comment Jake Thomas When Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it lifted many regulatory barriers that allowed cell phones and wireless Internet to become integral parts of daily lives. But since then, some scientists have begun wondering out loud if there isn’t an additional cost to these new technologies beside the monthly bill. A growing mound of studies are suggest that bathing ourselves in wireless frequencies 24-7 might bring on an epidemic of health problems, including cancer, that put children in particular at risk. “Full Signal” a documentary by Talal Jabari, a Palestinian filmmaker who cut his teeth during the Second Intifada, looks at some of the potential risks of a technology that has revolutionized how people communicate. Jabari recently sat down with the Portland Observer to discuss the documentary. What is the central thrust of “Full Signal”? The bottom line is there is more and more science that is showing there are risks associated with wireless technology, and we have to take precautions, not just on an individual level, but on a community level, and, also, in terms of government, to try and change the law that prohibits us from talking about the health impact of this technology. What prohibits us from talking about this technology? Well essentially, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 clearly states that the placement of this technology cannot be challenged for its environmental effects, and health being one of those environmental effects, which means you can’t ask that essential question of what is this doing to my health, and why does this need to be so close to me and my children and their school, for example. This is the essential premise that the wireless industry use to place their antennas wherever they want. How about the personal part of avoiding this technology? We have to realize that there is a risk to us using this technology, and by this technology I mean your cell phone, your Wi-Fi, your cordless phone at home. These are things people take for granted because they love the technology and the ease of using it. But there are some steps you can take. I would eliminate the wireless phone at home. That’s a continuous signal that is being sent throughout your home. Wi-Fi as well: eliminate it, especially if you have young children. These are the people that are going to be impacted. But certainly turn it off while you’re asleep, there is no need for it to be running, and your cell phone: use it as sparingly as possible. Now Maine, and the city of San Francisco are requiring labels on cell phones saying that they could be dangerous to your health. I think it’s only a matter of time before the cell phone conundrum is actually solved and shown to have a definitive impact on a person’s health. Wireless cell phone antennas are a little more difficult. But your cell phone, use it as sparingly as possible. Don’t give it to your children, they are at the biggest risk again. If you use it, use a hands-free device that is wired. Don’t use a Bluetooth because it is even more dangerous because people put it in their ears and they leave it there all day long and it’s transmitting all the time. Do you own a cell phone? I own a cell phone, yes. Because of the nature of my job and the nature of many other peoples’ jobs we need to be in touch. But I started using it a lot more sporadically. I turn it off a lot more, and I’ve learned to be at a stage where I use my cell phone as an answering machine, and I keep it off for most of the day. Sporadically during the day, depending on how busy my schedule is going to be, I turn it on. I see that I have voice mail, I call the person back on the land line. I essentially use it as an answering service. I’ve maintained it, but I really don’t use it anymore. Do you have Wi-Fi at home? I used to have Wi Fi at home before I started research for this film, but I’ve taken it out. You know what? I just got a longer cable. I have the Wi-Fi router with the Wi-Fi turned off and I just plug in the cable. It works fine. So you’re not saying we should completely abandon these technologies, just use less? Yeah, I mean I’m realistic. People aren’t going to pick up their cell phones and throw them away. I think with cordless phones at home and Wi-Fi we should look toward abandoning them because we are being exposed 24 hours a day, but with cell phones just using them a lot more sporadically, and become aware of the fact that there is a health risk. The cost of making these calls aren’t just what appears on your bill at the end of the month, there are long term effects, especially on children. Talk a little about the health effects. What are some things that can happen? There is a spectrum of health risks. We’re talking on the low-end of the spectrum dizziness, forgetfulness, headaches, that sort of a thing that goes away after you hang up the phone. But when you talk about long-term exposure then you start to talk about degenerative diseases, where your brain is being slowly eaten away; it’s dying in important areas. On the far end, you’re talking about cancers. There have been several cancers that have been linked to wireless frequencies. The famous one, of course, are brain tumors, both malignant and benign. People have leukemia from having their whole body irradiated by a tower or some other form of wireless technology. How did you get the idea to do this film? Two and a half years ago my wife and I had a baby, and as a new parent you become a little paranoid for your child. You make sure that all the sharp edges are covered and the TV is secure so they don’t pull that on herself. Our neighbor has an antenna on his roof. I love this technology, and wanted to see what’s going on here, if this is safe or not. I began speaking to a few experts who’ve conducted research in communities where there are cancer clusters. It was clear to me that there is a bigger issue here than I had previously known about. Before I used to be addicted to my cell phone. There are all sorts of deaths that are attributable to cars. People die in accidents, and they emit cancer-causing fumes. Are you worried that people will accept some sort of risk for these modern conveniences? People are always willing to assume some sort of risk. I think you have to look at the balance between risks and awards. Cars have, I believe, a bigger reward than a risk. But in terms of cell phones, if what the scientists are starting to uncover is true and you know these latency periods that started 10 years ago are going to start showing themselves now. It’s difficult to, especially in the Unites States, to replace your car with something else. Portland here has a transportation system, but not all cities do, not all rural communities do. That’s why it’s more valuable. It’s not difficult to replace a Wi-Fi system; it’s not difficult to replace your cell phone, so you’ve got to study to risk-reward balance. So the Telecommunications Act is in place, which gives a lot to wireless companies. They probably have an army of lobbyists with a lot of money. Don’t you think the train has left the station on this one? No, I mean the train left the station in 1996 when the Telecomm Act passed. A lot of money was paid to a lot of lawmakers to get this legislation passed. I think now, we need to put the breaks on the train. At the time it was a great idea: having wireless to communicate across the nation at cheap rates and in a convenient way. It was a fantastic idea. Now we are trying to see that maybe there are more questions than answers and now it’s time to slow things down. We’re not saying completely stop the train; we’re saying there has to be some sort of alternative. There has to be a safer way of using this technology. And that’s what we have to start looking for. What are some of those alternatives like turning your Wi-Fi off at night? Those are precautions. My generation when we were younger didn’t have the cell phones that younger generations have now. I don’t know hat alternative technologies there are honestly. I’m sure there are people working on them now. What is one thing people should be the most concerned about? The one thing that people should be most concerned about it that they’re not allowed to discuss their health. There’s this umbrella law, the Telecomm Act that should be unconstitutional. That should be against the law of the land to say that something so integral to my lifestyle is something that can’t be discussed. This is the biggest issue. The telecom industry shouldn’t be above reproach. We shouldn’t have to try and find new ways to fight the towers going up. It should be genuine discourse. This is the biggest problem. When you say that people can’t talk about it what do you mean? You can’t challenge the location of an antenna based on health. You can’t come to your city council and say I don’t want this tower here because there are x, y, and z studies that show this is going to be detrimental to be child’s health. You can’t do that. This is the essence of this situation. If the council says they’re worried about the health effects, they can be taken to court by the industry, and they have been taken to court in other places by the industry, a lot of times successfully because they have the Telecom Act backing them. What’s one thing in the documentary that really made an impression on you? You know, you learn a lot. I think that the biggest shock was that you think okay, I’m going to talk about that cell tower on my neighbor’s roof and then suddenly it’s not just the cell tower; I’m doing it to myself. That cell tower is there because I’m making those calls, and I’m bringing the Wi-Fi into my home, and who thinks that the cordless phone is dangerous? And I love technology, I’m as techie as the next guy. Once you discover that you’ve brought all these things into your house, just without thinking. We don’t ask the questions we just bring this technology into our house. This is the shocker. We need to be critical of people who say, “full signal, the anti-wireless movement are crazy.” A lot of people will say that I’m sure. And it’s difficult to criticize them because two years ago that’s where I was. I think they need an eye-opening experience. They need to see the science they need to just ask the questions. That’s all I’m asking them to do is to ask the questions don’t take anything for granted and then make up your mind. And hopefully before it’s too late, you know, in terms of these illness and these cancers that are facing us. This anti-wireless movement gets lumped in with fringe, out-there, conspiracy groups. Does that worry you? It does concern me. I consider myself mainstream, I think my forte, my strength in making this film, is that I am mainstream. I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I think people who try to tie this into bigger conspiracies are really being detrimental to the cause of making people aware of this risk. Don’t write it off as another conspiracy. This isn’t a conspiracy. There are scientists in the United States and around the world who say that there is an increased risk. As far as the message goes, do your research and make sure you’re using this technology responsibly. Talal Jabari with be present for a screening of “Full Signal,” Sunday, Feb. 21 at 4 p.m. at the Hollywood Theater on Northeast 40th and Sandy.
|
“Alzheimer’s Mouse Study–Do We Smell A Rat?”
New Report: “Alzheimer’s Mouse Study–Do We Smell A Rat?”
Mercola.com: http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/archive/2010/02/16/how-the-media-lies-to-you-about-cell-phones.aspx
Press Release: http://electromagnetichealth.org/pdf/Alzheimers-Press-Release.pdf
ElectromagneticHealth.org:
–
Paul Raymond Doyon
TESOL Professional
MAT (TESOL), School for International Training
MA Advanced Japanese Studies, University of Sheffield
BA Psychology, University of California
“The greatest challenge to the development of knowledge is the comfort of dogmatism – the security provided by unquestioned confidence in a statement of truth, or in a method of achieving truth – or even the shadow dogmatism of utter skepticism (for to be utterly skeptical is to dogmatically affirm that nothing can be known)…” David C. Kolb, Experiential Learning
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” ARTICLE 19 UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
“Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be their own judges obey the laws. Others sense their own laws within them; things are forbidden to them that every honorable man will do any day in the year and other things are allowed to them that are generally despised. Each person must stand on his own feet.”
Hermann Hesse
Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health
evil or more evil, that is the question
evil or more evil, that is the question
reprint from Gear + Gadgets
The concern about Wi-Fi is being taken seriously in Europe. In April 2008, the national library of France, citing possible “genotoxic effects,” announced it would shut down its Wi-Fi system, and the staff of the storied Library of Sainte-Geneviève in Paris followed up with a petition demanding the disconnection of Wi-Fi antennas and their replacement by wired connections. Several European governments are already moving to prohibit Wi-Fi in government buildings and on campuses, and the Austrian Medical Association is lobbying for a ban of all Wi-Fi systems in schools, citing the danger to children’s thinner skulls and developing nervous systems.
I drove down to Annapolis, Maryland, recently to visit with Allan Frey. He was preparing to set out on his forty-foot sailboat for a month at sea, so we talked at a restaurant near the marina. After retiring from full-time research in 1985, Frey, now 75, took up the philosophy of science as an avocation, looking at the question of how science progresses, how it fails to progress, how new ideas are birthed or aborted, how a shift in paradigm is a rare thing. The failure to look squarely at the dangers of microwave radiation is a case study in frozen paradigms, he said, a worldview that can’t keep pace with reality.
To illustrate what he meant, Frey held up a glass of water. “We’re all just big teacups, bags of water that you can heat up—that’s the paradigm,” he said. It’s the engineer’s paradigm, the mind-set of people who had no training in the complexity of living systems. The branches of the military, the major defense contractors, the manufacturers of microwave ovens, the telecom companies, were happy to embrace the engineer’s paradigm. The thinking was simple and easy to understand, and most important, it indemnified their operations from liability.
“It’s a very primitive mind-set,” said Frey. “Plato said we don’t see the reality; we see shadows on the cave walls. We’ve got a lot of people who are seeing shadows and saying this is the reality.” He nodded at his water glass. “We now know a human being isn’t a bag of water.
A human being is a complex organization of electrical fields.
Electroencephalograms and electrocardiograms, for example, measure these fields. Every cell has an electrical field across the cell membrane, which is a regulatory interface and controls what goes into and out of the cell. All nerve signals are electric. And between the nucleus and the membrane there is an electrical field, you can measure voltages of individual cells! Electricity drives biology.
We evolved in a particular electromagnetic environment”—the magnetic fields from the earth’s iron core, the terrestrial magnetism from lodestones, visible light, ultraviolet frequencies, lightning—”and if we change that environment as we have, we either adapt or we have trouble.”
Later, after Frey and I parted, I walked around Annapolis and took note of the number of cell towers poised atop the buildings, the number of people who talked on their cell phones. They were everywhere, and after a while I stopped counting. At one point, I watched two women pacing in a parking lot, heads bent against their microwave transmitters. They talked and talked and aimlessly circled. When I got home, I looked up a line from Orwell that I couldn’t quite remember as I watched them, about the power that machine technology would exert over mankind. “The machine has got to be accepted, but it is probably better to accept it rather as one accepts a drug—that is, grudgingly and suspiciously,” Orwell wrote. “Like a drug, the machine is useful, dangerous and habit-forming. The oftener one surrenders to it the tighter its grip becomes.”
Modern society, needless to say, is in the grip of wireless technology. All you have to do to understand this is step outside your door. “It just so happens,” Frey had told me, “that the frequencies and modulations of our cell phones seem to be the frequencies that humans are particularly sensitive to. If we had looked into it a little more, if we had done the real science, we could have allocated spectrums that the body can’t feel. The public should know if they are taking a risk with cell phones. What we’re doing is a grand world experiment without informed consent.” As for Louis Slesin’s question—what will it take to change the paradigm?—Frey shook his head. “Until there are bodies in the streets,” he said, “I don’t think anything is going to change.”
christopher ketcham is a reporter in New York City. Research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.
Posted by CSea Perkins | EMF | cellphones and cigarettes, christopher ketcham, electrocardiograms, Electroencephalograms, electrohypersensitivity, EMF, WiFi | No Comments Yet
Cell Phones Can Damage Your Eyes get EMF protection
Though this is a somewhat old article, I know more than a handfull of people having eye problems — at an age when they shouldn`t so… this is particularly for them.
paul doyon
From: Iris Atzmon atzmonh@bezeqint.net
http://cellularphones.myblogforseo.com/2010/01/19/cell-phones-can-damage-your-eyes-2/
Cell Phones Can Damage Your Eyes
Image : http://www.flickr.com
A recent scientific study identified a link between microwave radiation of the kind emitted by cellular phones and two different kinds of damage to the eye. At least one type of damage apparently never heals.
When the eye is exposed for a prolonged time to microwave radiation, there is large-scale damage to the optical quality of the lens. But there seemed to be a maximum level to this kind of damage, and when the exposure stops, the damage begins to heal.
However, at the same time, a different kind of damage occurs at the microscopic level. Tiny “bubbles” appear on the surface of the lens. This kind of damage reaches no maximum level, but instead accumulates progressively, and it did not heal even after the experiment stopped. It was theorized that the bubbles were caused by friction between cells that were exposed to the radiation.
Bioelectromagnetics July 2005; 26(5):398-405IsraCast July 27, 2005
Dr. Mercola’s Comment:
Electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation from cell phones is a topic that provokes a good deal of controversy. Many experts believe that the radiation is too low-level to cause harm. However, they often base this on an examination of thermal or heat-related effects. The danger from cell phones is far more likely to originate in the low-intensity pulsed microwave radiation that the phones emit.
There is a growing body of evidence that long-term exposure to this kind of cell phone radiation can indeed be a danger. As well as these studies showing they can affect the sensitive cells of your eyes, there has been research indicating that it can cause:Brain cancer Tumor growth on the auditory nerve Possibly Alzheimer’s disease Many other potential problems
Fortunately, the danger decreases exponentially the farther the cell phone is from your body. If you have a cell phone, I strongly recommend you use a headset, and keep the phone itself well away from your body.
Although that reduces the radiation risk considerably, some emissions can still travel up the headset wire and into the head. Probably the best solution is to get a cell phone with a good speaker phone and always use it. Keeping the phone as far away from your body is the ideal solution.
For many of you this is simply not very practical, so I recommend attaching the new air cell phone headsets that we have just introduced. If you use a cell phone without the speaker phone feature, then this is simply a must. There is no excuse to not use this technology, which virtually eliminates all the dangers of using a cell phone.
There are also, of course, more commonplace dangers to using cell phones. If you use one while driving your car, you increase your chance of having an accident by up to 400 percent. Worldwide, auto accidents account for 23 percent of all deaths from injury, which comes to over1 million deaths each year. At the same time, cancer, another deadly cell phone risk, has surpassed heart disease in America as the leading cause of death for those under 85. It kills over 1,500 people every day in the United States alone.
Every year, more and more people are switching to cell phones. Many are now using cell phones as their only phone, especially among younger people, who could be exposing themselves to EMF radiation and other risks over a period of decades.
Please avoid having yourself become a statistic. If you use a cell phone at all, wear a headset with a ferrite bead, don’t use the cell phone in the car, and in general try to minimize your cell phone use. Related Articles: Electromagnetic Fields and Cell Phones Are Cell Phones Safe For Your Children?”If Mobile Phones Were a Type of Food, They Simply Would Not be Licensed”
Optimum Cell Phone Protection, compare http://BioMapped.com
-
Archives
- March 2010 (5)
- February 2010 (3)
- January 2010 (9)
- December 2009 (1)
- November 2009 (5)
- October 2009 (8)
- September 2009 (10)
- August 2009 (11)
- July 2009 (8)
- June 2009 (7)
- May 2009 (3)
- April 2009 (13)
-
Categories
- airline industry
- antenna
- appliances
- awareness
- CA
- cancer
- cell phone
- cell tower
- children
- disease
- economy
- electricity
- electrohypersensitivity
- electromagnetic fields
- electromagnetic radiation
- electronics
- electrosmog
- EMF
- EMR
- environment
- family
- France
- global warming
- greenhouse emissions
- harmonizer
- Health
- mast
- media
- microwave
- mobile
- neutralize
- pollution
- power
- pregnancy
- protect
- public safety
- radiation interference
- schools
- sensativity
- solutions
- teens / tweens
- toddlers
- tower
- USA
- WiFi
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
