View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
acrobat74 Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007 Posts: 836
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:35 am Post subject: Mobile & cordless phones: how safe are they? |
|
|
Safe? Hmm, probably not very much, especially given their prolonged usage pattern.
The BioInitiative report is a report by top-notch scientists that expresses serious concerns regarding the adverse effects of these devices on public health.
Quote: | List of BioInitiative Participants
Organizing Committee Members
Carl F. Blackman*, Ph.D.
Founder, Former President and Full Member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society
Raleigh, NC USA
*opinions expressed are not necessarily those of his employer,
the US Environmental Protection Agency
Martin Blank, PhD Associate Professor
Former President and Full Member of Bioelectromagnetics Society
Dept. of Physiology. College of Physicians and Surgeons
Columbia University
New York, NY USA
Prof. Michael Kundi, PhD
Full Member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society
Institute of Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna
Vienna, Austria
Cindy Sage, MA, Owner
Full Member. Bioelectromagnetics Society
Sage Associates
Santa Barbara, CA USA
Participants
David O. Carpenter, MD
Director, Institute for Health and the Environment
University at Albany East Campus
Rensselaer, NY USA
Zoreh Davanipour. DVM, PhD
Friends Research Institute
Los Angeles, CA USA
David Gee
Coordinator Emerging Issues and Scientific Liaison
Strategic Knowledge and Innovation
European Environmental Agency
Copenhagen, Denmark
Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Prof.
Department of Oncology
University Hospital
Orebro, Sweden
Olle Johansson, PhD, Associate Professor
The Experimental Dermatology Unit.
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute
Stockholm, Sweden
Henry Lai, PhD
Department of Bioengineering
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington USA
Kjell Hansson Mild, PhD, Prof.
Former President and Full Member of Bioelectromagnetics Society
Board Member, European Bioelectromagnetics Society (EBEA)
Umea University, Department of Radiation Physics
Umeå, Sweden
Amy Sage, Research Associate
Sage Associates
Santa Barbara, CA USA
Eugene L. Sobel, PhD
Friends Research Institute
Los Angeles, CA USA
Zhengping Xu, PhD
Guangdi Chen, PhD
Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory,
Zhejiang University School of Medicine
Hangzhou . People's Republic of China
Reviewers (partial)
James B. Burch, PhD
Arnold School of Public Health
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC USA
Nancy Evans, BS
Health Science Consultant
San Francisco, CA USA
Stanton Glanz, PhD
University of California, San Francisco
Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education
Cardiovascular Research Institute, Institute for Health Policy Studies
San Francisco, CA USA
Denis Henshaw, PhD
Professor of Physics
Human Radiation Effects Group
Wills Physics Laboratory
Bristol University, Bristol, UK
Samuel Milham, MD
Washington State Department of Health (retired)
Olympia, Washington
Louis Slesin, PhD
Microwave News
New York, NY USA |
Summary of findings for the public:
Quote: | Table 1-1 BioInitiative Report Overall Conclusions
OVERALL SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
• The existing ICNIRP and FCC limits for public and occupational exposure to ELF and RF are insufficiently protective of public health.
• Biologically-based public and occupational exposure standards for extra-low frequency and radiofrequency radiation are recommended to address bioeffects and potential adverse health effects of chronic exposure to ELF and RF.
These effects are now widely reported to occur at exposure levels significantly below most current national and international limits.
• A biologically-based exposure limit is one that is protective against ELF and RF intensity and modulation factors which, with chronic exposure, can reasonably be presumed to result in significant impacts to health and well-being.
• Research is needed (but should not delay) regulatory action for ELF and substantive preventative action for RF proportionate to potential health and wellbeing risks from chronic exposure.
• A biologically-based exposure limit should reflect current scientific knowledge of bioeffects and health effects, and impose new limits based on preventative action as defined by the Precautionary Principle (EEA, 2001).
• Biologically-based exposure standards shall be protective against exposures levels of ELF and RF that affect or change normal biological functioning of organisms (humans).
They shall not be based solely on energy absorption or thermal levels of energy input, or resulting tissue heating. They shall be protective against chronic exposure responses.
• The existing standards are based on thermal (heating) limits, and do not address non-thermal (or low-intensity) exposures which are widely reported to cause bioeffects, some likely leading to adverse health effects with chronic exposure.
• Biological effects may include both potential adverse health effects and loss of homeostasis and well-being.
• Biologically-based exposure standards are needed to prevent disruption of normal body processes. Effects are reported for DNS damage (genotoxicity that is directly linked to integrity of the human genome), cellular communication, cellular metabolism and repair, cancer surveillance within the body; and for protection against cancer and
neurological diseases. Also reported are neurological effects including impairment of sleep and sleep architecture, cognitive function and memory; depression; cardiac effects; pathological leakage of the blood-brain barrier; and impairment of normal immune function, fertility and reproduction.
• Frequency, intensity, exposure duration, and the number of exposure episodes can affect the response, and these factors can interact with each other to produce different effects. In addition, in order to understand the biological consequences of EMF exposure, one must know whether the effect is cumulative, whether compensatory responses result, and when homeostasis will break down.
• Plausible biological mechanisms that can account for genotoxicity (DNA damage) are already well known (oxidative damage via free-radical actions) although it should also be said that there is not yet proof. However, proof of mechanism is not required to set prudent public health policy, nor is it mandatory to set new guidelines or limits if
adverse health effects occur at lower-than-existing IEEE and ICNIRP standards. |
Cindy Sage discusses the report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tZDor-_co0
A more in-depth summary for the public here:
http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/docs/section_1.pdf
All reports & summaries here:
http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm
Royal Society of London Meeting on BioInitiative Report and the Urgent Need for New Biologically-Based Public Exposure Limits:
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS22517+01-Dec-2007+BW20 071201
A recent Daily Mail article here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html? in_article_id=525268&in_page_id=1774 _________________ Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 1158 Location: South Essex
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74 Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007 Posts: 836
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newspeak International wrote: | There was a fairly recent Panorama prog called -Wi-Fi a warning signal,
which I see is no longer available on Google Video!
Still,good to see you re-highlighting this acrobat. |
You're welcome Newspeak. Some media in the UK seem to be catching on with this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-ne ws/mobile-phones-more-dangerous-than-smoking-or-asbestos-802602.html
or
http://www.underthecarpet.co.uk/Pages/NewsArticle.php?num=4214
The Independent wrote: | Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'
Brain expert warns of huge rise in tumours and calls on industry to take immediate steps to reduce radiation.
Young people are at particular risk from exposure to radiation
By Geoffrey Lean
Sunday, 30 March 2008
Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation.
The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks.
It draws on growing evidence – exclusively reported in the IoS in October – that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.
Earlier this year, the French government warned against the use of mobile phones, especially by children. Germany also advises its people to minimise handset use, and the European Environment Agency has called for exposures to be reduced.
Professor Khurana – a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers – reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is currently being peer-reviewed for publication in a scientific journal.
He admits that mobiles can save lives in emergencies, but concludes that "there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours". He believes this will be "definitively proven" in the next decade.
Noting that malignant brain tumours represent "a life-ending diagnosis", he adds: "We are currently experiencing a reactively unchecked and dangerous situation." He fears that "unless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive steps", the incidence of malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to rise globally within a decade from now, by which time it may be far too late to intervene medically.
"It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking," says Professor Khurana, who told the IoS his assessment is partly based on the fact that three billion people now use the phones worldwide, three times as many as smoke. Smoking kills some five million worldwide each year, and exposure to asbestos is responsible for as many deaths in Britain as road accidents.
Late last week, the Mobile Operators Association dismissed Khurana's study as "a selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual". It believes he "does not present a balanced analysis" of the published science, and "reaches opposite conclusions to the WHO and more than 30 other independent expert scientific reviews". |
_________________ Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 1158 Location: South Essex
|
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Remember this article from last year:
Orange to remove mobile mast from 'tower of doom', where cancer rate has soared
Last updated at 15:50pm on 13th September 2007
John Llewellin died last month.
A mobile phone company is to remove a mast from a block of flats after seven residents were struck down by cancer.
Three have died and another four have battled the disease since two masts were erected on the roof of the five-storey block which has become known locally as the Tower of Doom.
The cancer rate on the top floor - where residents of five of the eight flats have been affected and the three who died all lived - is 20 per cent, ten times the national average.
Residents of Berkeley House in Staple Hill, Bristol, also complain of terrible headaches and other ailments which they blame on radiation from the masts.
Orange has agreed to remove its mast after a five-year campaign by residents and pressure from the local authority. But it has caused anger with plans to move it to a residential street nearby.
The other mast belongs to Vodafone, which has no plans to move it.
The most recent death was that of John Llewellin, 63, who lost his battle against bowel cancer two weeks ago.
Two years ago, Barbara Wood died in her 70s from breast cancer. Two years earlier Joyce Davies died, also from breast cancer.
Danger zone: Residents at this Bristol flat have suffered illness and death
The other victims on the top floor are Hazel Frape, 63, who has had breast cancer, and 89-year-old Phyllis Smith who moved out after she contracted the same disease.
On the fourth floor Bernice Mitchell, 69, has battled womb cancer. On the second floor, 78-year-old Barbara Watts, who has lived in the block for 31 years, is in remission from breast cancer.
Many of the 110 residents, including Doreen Sheppard, 74, have complained of headaches and other health problems.
She said: "The masts are bound to be doing something. I get terrible headaches and I've started suffering from Meniere's disease, where I lose my balance. I'm worried about the children on the estate as there are so many of them now."
Both masts were erected in 1994. South Gloucestershire Council served a notice asking for them to be removed when the ten-year contract expired three years ago.
But because current guidelines say there is no risk from radiation the council does not have a legal right to force their removal.
After a long legal battle Orange has submitted a planning application to put the mast on top of a shopping precinct in a street near homes, a primary school and a public library.
Moira Llewellin's husband died of cancer, one of three flat residents to die
Jeanette McCormack, 69, who has led a campaign against the mast, said a petition against the new location had gathered more than 200 names.
She added: "People of all ages who live and work near the mast will be exposed to the radiation and so there's a lot of anger about it."
World Health Organisation guidelines have dismissed the risks of masts despite other evidence which has found they are harmful.
A spokesman for Orange said the company takes health and safety very seriously.
He added that the company was satisfied its mobile phone base stations do not present a health risk.
Vodafone is working on a new longterm lease from South Gloucestershire Council. A spokesman said the company took residents' concerns "extremely seriously" and would continue to work with them and the council to provide reassurance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html? in_article_id=473553&in_page_id=1774 _________________ http://www.myspace.com/glassasylum2
Dave Sherlock's:
http://www.myspace.com/GlassAsylum
http://www.myspace.com/chemtrailsuk |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sam Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007 Posts: 343
|
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newspeak International wrote: |
The cancer rate on the top floor - where residents of five of the eight flats have been affected and the three who died all lived - is 20 per cent, ten times the national average.
John Llewellin, 63
Barbara Wood died in her 70s
Two years earlier Joyce Davies died, also from breast cancer.
Hazel Frape, 63
89-year-old Phyllis Smith
Bernice Mitchell, 69
78-year-old Barbara Watts
|
While I am by no means knocking the idea that mobile phones and masts pose a health hazard, we need to be a bit careful about statistics.
The opening shot of the article relates to national averages. This covers all age-ranges (as far as we can tell)
It then lists several residents (abbreviated above) who have died or suffered cancer. They are at the top end of the age range.
So - what's the national average for cancer incidence/death for the span of ages of the residents within the time period under consideration?
Has there been a preponderance of older people in the flats? Are there other factors such as a greater likelihood of smoking or - common among older poorer people - tendency to avoid routine health checks and to ignore symptoms?
Statistics can be tricky blighters. _________________ Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|