Osoyoos Indians ban smart meters from their land

On behalf of the Osoyoos Indian Band, Chief Clarence Louie announced today that he and all Band Council members have signed a governing document prohibiting Fortis BC, the local utility company, from installing Smart Meters on the approximately 703 homes and businesses on the Osoyoos Indian Reserve.

“Having been presented with science-based evidence, the Band Council and I are convinced that Fortis’ proposed wireless smart meters in meshed-grid networks have potential to harm our children and our environment. No scientist on the planet has been able to verify the safety of these extremely dangerous devices that emit microwave radiation 24/7 in perpetuity and which cannot be turned off.”

“As Chief of the Osoyoos Indian band, my first duty is to protect my people, our future generations and our lands. For that reason, the Band Council and I believe we need to err on the side of caution and respect the world’s leading independent scientists who say – and have evidence to prove – that electromagnetic radiation, especially pulsed radio and microwave frequency radiation is harmful to all living things.”

“I am proud of our Council for standing up and voting to prohibit the installation of smart meters on our lands in order to protect not only our own people, but all the peoples who reside and work on the Osoyoos Indian Band lands.”

The press release is shown below.

Wi-Fi Technology - An Uncontrolled Global Experiment on the Health of Mankind

"The continuous non-controlled exposure of the entire civilization to low-intensity EMFs now represents a more serious problem for mankind than ionizing radiation where the sources of radiation are under strict control and are well localized...

"More than 10 years ago, at a WHO-organized meeting on harmonization of standards, one of the authors of this article pointed out that neglecting the hazard of high-frequency EMF for children is a crime against humanity.  

"The scientific and medical communities are obliged to ring the bell – the health and standardization institutions must urgently develop recommendations and actions for the protection of civilization and especially children."

Wi-Fi technology – an uncontrolled global experiment on the health of mankind
by Marko Markov, Research International, Williamsville, NY, USA, and

Yuri G. Grigoriev, Russian National Committee of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Moscow, Russia
Published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, June 2013

Following are extracts.  See here for document in full.

The twenty-first century is marked with exponentially increasing development of technologies that provide wireless communications. To the pollution of the atmosphere with radio and TVsignals, not only satellite communications but also any varieties of the Wi-Fi networks are added. By 2010 in the USA, 285 million mobile phone subscribers have been registered (for a little bit more than 300 million inhabitants). The estimate for the world is more than 5 billion mobile phone users at approximately 7 billion people living on this planet. Approximately 2 years ago, the International Agency of Research on Cancer (IARC) classified the electromagnetic fields used in mobile communication as a possible cancerogene. This paper discusses the potential health hazard and lack of scientific assessment and regulatory actions in protection of the life on the planet

The fast development of satellite communications, followed by wireless communications and recently Wi-Fi technology dramatically, changes the electromagnetic environment. To continuous action of complex and unknown (by sources, amplitudes, frequencies) electromagnetic fields is exposed entire biosphere and every organism living on this planet. We usually neglect this complex that includes radio and TV transmissions, satellite signals, mobile phones and base stations and wireless communications.  Speaking on the potential hazard of Wi-Fi technologies, one should not forget that it includes not only mobile phones but also more importantly all means of emitters and distributors of Wi-Fi signals, mainly antennas, base stations and satellites.  In many public locations, own systems are introduced in order to facilitate the work performance. Well, this might be understood. However, why Wi-Fi communications are secured in the subway tunnels? It obviously requires high and oriented power to which are exposed all passengers in the trains. Just to make comfortable the users of mobile phones or other WiFi gadgets.The search for specificity of the Wi-Fi technology can point to the following:

- Popular technology that allows an electronic device to exchange data wirelessly (using radio waves) over a computer network, including high-speed Internet.

- A device that uses Wi-Fi can connect to a network resource such as the Internet via a wireless network access point. Such an access point has a range of about20m (65ft) indoors and a greater range outdoors. As a result,
- brains of 7,000,000,000 people are exposed to unknown spectrum of EMF,

- there are no criteria for hazard,

- no monitoring,
- no research and
- no prevention.

Generally speaking, we do not know if or to which extent the Wi-Fi radiation alters the physiology of normal, healthy organisms. The situation became more complex when we are asking about the influence on children, on aging adults or sick individuals. Especially for children we should point that:

- children are exposed to all spectrum of EMF that polluted the biosphere,
- who is brave enough to say that Wi-Fi cannot influence the children’s brain which is still underdeveloped,
- children are prone to electronic toys – cell phones and wireless games.

Wi-Fi and mobile communications effects on children

To the large range of high-frequency electromagnetic fields is exposed any age group –from babies to very old people, most of which do not have interest toward mobile communications. This is extremely dangerous especially for children who use mobile phones from early age without any control from the site of their parents. In evaluation of the mobile phone EMF hazard for children, the main problem is the direct effect of the EMF on the brain of the child, which is the critical organ.One should remember that the child’s brain is still in process of the physiological development. Moreover, using the mobile phones children expose to EMF daily and in duration of years not only brain, but the complex nerve structures in the internal year that are responsible for normal functioning of the hearing and of the vestibular analyzers (Grigoriev, 2006a,b, 2012b). We discuss the basic principles for the estimation of the hazard of microwave EMF for this part of population who most frequently use contemporary modalities of the wireless communications – children and young adults.

- For the first time in the history of our civilization, the most critical systems inhuman organism – brain and the nerve structures – inside the internal year of children and adults are exposed to complicated and unknown exposure to EMF.

- Due to physiological reasons, the brain of a child exhibited higher rates of specific absorption of EMF compared with adult’s brain. Thus, more compartments of the brain are exposed to high-frequency EMF, including those responsible for intellectual development. Recently, data about unfavorable influence of the EMF on the cognitive function of the brain have been published (Grigoriev, 2012b).

- Once again, children’s brain is in the stage of physiological development and formation of the analytical function could be inhibited, including thed evelopment of pathological functions, such as epileptic syndrome (Grigoriev &Sidorenko, 2011).

- Children became owners of the mobile phones and other uncontrolled sources of EMF.

- Due to the age specificity, children cannot evaluate the potential hazard of the mobile phone. Rather they consider it as a wonderful tool for communication and entertainment.

- Taking into account the technological development in the wireless communications, it will be fair to say that children at the age of 3–4 will be using mobile communication longer than their parents with respect to their entire life. Thereis evidence that today the children and young adults are the most aggressive users of mobile communications and Wi-Fi technology.

- It is unfortunate that with support and encouragement of parents these two groups are exposed for long hours to uncontrolled influence of EMF in RF range.In addition, as shown by Divan, Kheifets, and Obel (2008), today one cannot neglect the fact that even during the embryonic development the child organism could be exposed to electromagnetic influence.It is reasonable to remind the position of the WHO “CHILDREN ARE DIFFERENT FROM ADULTS.” 

Children have a unique vulnerability.  As they grow and develop, there are “windows of susceptibility”: periods when their organs and systems may be particularly sensitive to the effect of certain environmental threats (WHO,2003, 5p.).  Unfortunately, there is lack of scientific data and analysis of the estimation of the potential hazard of mobile communications. Nobody investigates thoroughly the potential damages in the brain of children, which potentially could occur in their developing brain (Markov, 2012). Studies of potential of development of the long-range modification of the brain functions in children whose brain have been exposed to continuous irradiation with high-frequency EMF are completely absent.Therefore, we should start from zero. At the same time, international and governmental agencies responsible for standards are slow in responding to the exponential growth of technologies and in principle completely neglect the hazard for children (Grigoriev, 2008; Markov, 2012).  

More than 10 years ago, at the WHO organized meeting on harmonization of standards one of the authors pointed out that neglecting the hazard of high-frequency EMF for children is a crime against humanity (Markov, 2001).  It should be stressed that at ionizing radiation the dose/effect dependence is present in any case of consideration, while with nonionizing radiation the threshold effect is basically absent, the occurrence of bioeffects needs some time todevelop and might be diminished or enlarge by modulation (Grigoriev, 2006,a,b).  It is unfortunate that until now scientists, politicians and lawmakers under-estimate the unfavorable effects on human health that may occur as a result of long, continuous exposure to non-ionizing radiation (often exposure from different factors). The other problem arises from the engineering community, which forces the notion that non-thermal effects are only of importance. We believe that scientific community must be more insisting in comprehension of potential hazard that mobile exchange of information is potentially invoked in human organisms. In that aspect, it is very important that the IARCclassified the RF EMF as a possible cancerogene (2B). It is important to note that for less than two years this major International Agency switched from “noconclusive evidence for health hazard” to “possible cancerogene”. 

At the same time, ICNIRP continues to affirm that “the trend in the accumulating evidence is against the hypothesis that mobile phones can cause brain tumors in adults” (Boice & Tarone, 2011). A question eventually arises “Why ICNIRP takes this position?” We may offer two different, but eventually complimentary answers: first, most of the funding forICNIRP is coming from industry and second, eventually more important – most of the members of ICNIRP are engineers for whom only thermal effects may cause biological effects.  It is time that scientific community in general as well as radiobiologists andmagnetobiologist rings the bell that it is time to recognize and estimate the potential hazard for human health of the increasingly elevated background radiation levels.  In 2003, IEEE published astandard that affirmed that biological effects can only bethermal (Cho & D’Andrea, 2003). No heat – no effect. This policy serves very well in the industry and creates a serious barrier preventing biology-based assessment of the human health.The scientific community must be more insisting in comprehension of potential hazard that mobile exchange of information potentially invoke in human organisms.In addition, the development of nuclear medicine and nuclear energy elevates the radiation background over the planet, not even considering Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters (Akahane et al., 2012; Grigoriev, 2012c).

In conclusion, we would like to point out the following:

1. For a number of reasons, the evaluation and prevention of hazard from ionizing radiation have been developed during the last 60 years. 

2. The problem of potential hazard of non-ionizing radiation is studied for significantly shorter period of time and significant differences in standards indifferent countries can be seen. It is due to the fact that in North America the standards are based on engineering computation, while in former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe the standards are biologically based. Despite all efforts of the WHO for harmonization of standards, today standards do not consider the real pollution of the environment with non-ionizing radiation.

3. The comparison of both sources of radiation leads to conclusion that the continuous non-controlled exposure of the entire civilization to low-intensity EMFs represents now more serious problem for the mankind than ionizing radiation where the sources of radiation are under strict control and are well localized.

4. For the first time in the history of mankind, because of aggressive use of mobile phones children are exposed to harmful non-ionizing radiation and potentially are subject of larger risk than adults. Even if the dose received by the children’s brain is the same as for adults, due to the specificity of the body size and physiological development, children are in greater danger. It might be compared to the hazard of EMF for professional groups.

5. In early 2012, the European Parliament voted by 512 to 16 to urge member countries to impose stricter limits for exposure to radiation from mobile phone and Wi-Fi technologies, especially taking care for the most sensitive population of children.

6. The scientific and medical communities are obliged to ring the bell – the health and standardization institutions must urgently develop recommendations and actions for protection of the civilization and especially children.

7. We should stop telling the science, politicians and general population that Wi-Fi is harmless.

8. We should better be honest and say that “we do not know what long-term effects might be.”

Who else if not we? When if not now?

http://www.viewdocsonline.com/document/6kn1ey

Sheila Hemphill Stops City From Installing Smart Meters

Sheila Hemphill recently stopped the Brady City Council from installing smart meters in all homes within the small Texas town.

Smart meters collect customer data for the utility company and help customers determine peak usage times so they can lower their usage and save money on their power bills.

Hemphill, who owns a wellness shop, repeatedly told the city council and Alex Jones on his radio show (video below) that smart meters emit radiation that can cause cancer, notes InfoWars.com.

However, according to the American Cancer Society, the chances of humans contracting cancer from smart meters are extremely low, if at all:

Smart meters emit RF waves, which are a type of electromagnetic radiation, so there is the potential for them to cause harm. The actual risk of harm, if it exists, is likely to be extremely low, for a number of reasons.

The RF waves that smart meters give off are a form of electromagnetic energy that falls between FM radio waves and microwaves. Like FM radio waves, microwaves, visible light, and heat, RF waves are a form of non-ionizing radiation. They don’t have enough energy to cause cancer by directly damaging the DNA inside cells.

...At very high levels, RF waves can heat up body tissues. But the levels of energy given off by smart meters are much lower, and are not enough to raise temperatures in the body.

The low levels of energy that smart meters give off at their source are further diluted by the distance they typically need to travel to reach people (unlike cell phones, for instance) and by any walls they have to pass through.

“I am a person who says ‘No!’ when it comes to my community,” Hemphill told Jones. “Your pineal gland that detects darkness can’t tell the difference between light frequency and the frequencies from these devices.”

“I was legally blocked 5 times from having the ability to seek action of my elected officials,” claimed Hemphill, who finally blocked the city council's smart meters plan by implementing Texas Local Government Code 9.004.

"Get a petition together. It requires 5 percent of registered voters or 20,000, whichever is less," said Hemphill. "You, by petition, change your city charter to get fluoride out of your water, change your city charter that says that you, as the resident, have the right to remove any product or service you deem harmful to your person, property, or privacy, regardless of what the elected officials say, …that they don’t think there’s a problem. We are the people. This is power.”

Sources: InfoWars.com and American Cancer Society

Source: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/health/conditions/cancer/sheila-hemphill-stops-city-installing-smart-meters-cancer-conspiracy

Jenny goes mobile

On 5.22.13, singer and actress Jennifer Lopez announced she’s opening a chain of cell phone retail stores and a website with Verizon Wireless but under the Viva Movil brand (so it sounds better). According to the New York Times, "the aim is to sell Verizon phones and services to Latinos."

Lopez said she wasn’t looking specifically to get into wireless – “it was just one of those things where you sit down with people and you start spitballing.” While Lopez might just be trying to make some easy money off her mobile phone enterprise, it's important to recognize celebrities have a strong influence in society. While numerous doctors and researcher still debate if cell phones could have negative health effects, I think celebrities like Lopez are jumping the buck to soon. But one must remember only a few decades ago, Amelia Earhart was in Lucky Strike cigarette ads. 

Indian Communications Minister Calls for Doubling Penalty for Violation in Cell Tower Radiation Levels

"The industry will have to demonstrate that radiation exposure limits prescribed by the Department of Telecommunications are being adhered to." 

Communications Minister Kapil Sibal

Sibal calls for doubling penalty for violation in cell tower radiation levels.

KOLKATA: Mobile phone companies will soon have to shell out Rs 10 lakh per site as penalties for any breach in cell tower radiationlevels. Communications minister Kapil Sibalhas recommended doubling the penalty for any violation in cell tower radiation levels from the present Rs 5 lakh per site per telco to Rs 10 lakh per site per telco, according to documents reviewed by ET.

"Penalty for non-compliance of actual radiation norms may be two times higher," says Sibal in an internal telecom department note, a copy of which was reviewed by ET.

But Sibal is learnt to have advised DoT officials during a recent meeting with telecom industry representatives "not to treat penalties as a revenue generation exercise but as clauses to facilitate compliance," said a top executive of a GSM operator who was present in the meeting. This is since the telecom department was pressing for a three-fold jump in the penalty for any violation in cell tower radiation exposure level.

Sibal has also urged the telecom department to "levy only a token sum" if a telco is found radiating from a new site without having submitted the necessary documents or installed the required signages on such towers.

Till recently, such non-submission of documents relating to new sites were also being treated as cell tower radiation violations by DoT and attracting the Rs 5 lakh per site penalty, which will no longer be the case.

Sibal called for a review after representatives of COAI and AUSPI -- the industry bodies representing telcos operating on the GSM and CDMA technology platforms -- apprised him that merely 1.2% of radiation-related penalty notices issued by DoT pertained to actual non-compliance, while a majority were triggered by faulty documentation or non-availability of signages at tower sites.

But the minister has ruled out easing the rules for non-compliance on cell tower radiation limits, and urged telcos to furnish a comprehensive data-base on current radiation levels at tower sites by July 15. "The industry will have to demonstrate through this computerised database that radiation exposure limits prescribed by DoT are being adhered to," says the department note with ET.

Effective from September 1, 2012, DoT had lowered the permissible radiation limit to 0.45 watts per sq metre -- which is one-tenth of the ICNIRP guidelines - for Indian operators.

Germany-based International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection or ICNIRP puts out norms on permissible radiation limits for tower firms: 4.5 watts per sq metre in the 900 MHz frequency band. Some countries (notably the United States and Canada) are above it. While several including India, are below it.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/telecom/sibal-calls-for-doubling-penalty-for-violation-in-cell-tower-radiation-levels/articleshow/20384997.cms

Spanish and German Students Win Prizes for Wi-Fi Experiments in 2012

Martin Alvarez and Queila Bouza

Following publication of the article on the Danish school girls’ experiment with cress and Wi-Fi, readers have drawn our attention to two similar experiments undertaken by Spanish and German students of the same age group in 2012. These students also won prizes for their science projects. Here they are: 

Tecnópole Classroom Students receive prize “Es de libro” in competition with more than 3,400 students across Spain
Tecnópole, 21 May 2012

Queila Bouza and Martin Alvarez, students at Tecnópole and 4th of ESO in IES O Couto de Ourense, were winners of the event "Es de libro” with their scientific research on the influence of radiation emitted by mobile devices such as mobile or wireless routers on seed germination and plant growth. The two students, who will receive the award on Saturday from the Minister of Education, José Ignacio Wert, concluded that there is a direct influence on the germination process. Seed fertility was higher in the case of those not exposed to radiation.
 

The project was developed as part of the Tecnópole Classrooms training program and innovative scientific skills organized by the Technological Park of Galicia and funded by the Ministry of Economy and Industry. A total of 3,441 students, presenting 517 projects, participated from all over Spain in the event, organized by the Spanish Reproduction Rights (CEDAR) with support from the Ministry of Education.

The jury consisted of intellectuals from different fields, such as scientist Margarita Salas, economist Tamames Ramon, writers Carme Riera and Juan Cruz Iguerabide and philosopher Javier Sádaba. The jury’s decision, taken unanimously, was based on the recognition of the "excellent quality of the work presented, originality in approach and implementation, respect for intellectual property rights and the research effort conducted by the authors.

Outreach Initiatives

Tecnópole Classrooms are an initiative of the Technological Park of Galicia to boost scientific disclosure that aims to awaken in boys and girls curiosity and concern about a future scientific career they can orient toward or to attitudes and skills of innovative entrepreneurship.

As part of this initiative, students spend one afternoon a week at Tecnópole, where they carry out their projects in a team, assisted by a group of trainers with extensive experience teaching and developing programs of this nature. The students, all from the second cycle of secondary and high school, receive training on the guidelines to be followed for rigorous scientific research.

Original article in Spanish: "Estudiantes de las Aulas Tecnópole se hacen con el premio ‘Es de libro’ en competición con más de 3.400 alumnos de toda España". :

http://www.tecnopole.es/?q=es%2Fnode%2F2222

Another student Wi-Fi experiment: Wi-Fi may kill mealworms
(Electromagnetic Radiation Safety), 8 March 2012

Strange, what Caroline Schick has built in her basement. A flower box full of mealworms has been placed next to a wireless router.

The 19-year-old did not allow the mealworms access to the Internet. The whole thing was an experiment conducted by Caroline for "Young Scientists" which gained her first place in the regional competition.

Here is the explanation of the experimental setup:

Caroline wanted to find out whether the radiation of a wireless router (used for wireless internet) is harmful. She selected mealworms because they are very sensitive as they develop into beetles. If the radiation has effects on living organisms, she must be able to observe it in mealworms.

Caroline bought 100 mealworms in a pet shop and placed them in a flower box next to a wireless router. For comparison, she made a second flower box full of worms so far away that the wi-fi radiation did not reach these animals.

After the meal worms had pupated and turned into beetles, "The death rate in the exposed animals was about 19 percent higher," says Caroline.

(Thanks to Safer Phone Day for bringing this to my attention. The original article is in German. I paraphrased above the Google translation.)

Original article in German:  "Nur das Siegerstrahlen ist gesund" :

http://www.borkenerzeitung.de/nachrichten/borken_artikel,-Nur-das-Siegerstrahlen-ist-gesund-_arid,53628.html 

Wireless SmartMeters added to Cell Phones threaten our Bees

There have been petitions in Europe to save the Bee population due to Insecticides. However everyone is ignoring another Bee Killer - EMF's. 
When cellular phones were placed near hives, the radiation generated by them (900-1,800 MHz) was enough to prevent bees from returning to them, according to a study conducted at Landau University.
Scientists believe the radiation produced by cellular phones may be enough to interfere with the way bees communicate with their hives. Cellular phones may create a resonance effect that interferes with the movement patterns bees use as a kind of language.
Most recently, experiments by Sainuddeen Pattazhy, a researcher and dean in the department of zoology at SN College, Punalur, Kerala, also found that microwaves from mobile phones appear to interfere with worker bees' navigation skills.

When Pattazhy placed mobile phones near beehives, the hives collapsed completely in five to 10 days. The worker bees failed to return home and vanished, never to be found. Adding to the mystery, parasites, wildlife and other bees, which would normally raid the abandoned hives, would not go near the collapsed colonies.

Smart Meter radiation, as established by a Court in Santa Cruz, California, is 50 to 480 times even more powerful/dangerous than a cell phone! What devastating effects will the forced SmartMeter Grid end up having on these insects so needed to sustaining life on this Planet?

Source: http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Change_SmartMeter_installation_and_regulate_Cell_Phones/?fLqcVbb&pv=10

Mobilize - An Investigative Documentary

Mobilize is an investigative documentary that explores the potential long-term health effects from cell phone radiation including brain cancer and infertility. This thought-provoking film examines the most recent scientific research and the challenges politicians face trying to pass cell phone safety legislation. Through interviews with expert researchers, major mobile associates, and prominent politicians, Mobilize presents a balanced and insightful observation about this unspoken health issue.

Mobilize - Official Trailer - 2 mn.

Filmed over three years and edited together from over 2,000 hours of footage, Mobilize features interviews with individuals from the following organizations and universities: Apple Inc., the World Health Organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the National Cancer Institute, the Cellular Telecommunications Internet Association, Yale University , Harvard University, USC, UCSF, UC Berkeley, and Virgin Mobile. The documentary also includes personal accounts from brain tumor patients and activists who urge people to get educated and answer the call.

http://www.MobilizeMovie.com

Can Vitamins Protect You From Electrosmog?

Lloyd Burrell, who is electrosensitive, explains why vitamins do not protect one from electrosmog.  His site, ElectricSense, gives excellent advice on ways to protect oneself.

We live in a world where everything is constantly changing. Things are moving so fast. TV and now Internet mean we have access to information like never before. Many of us spend our time zapping from one thing to another, from one TV channel to another, from one website to another. What are we all looking for?

Usually it’s the answer to a question. Sometimes we are not even sure what the question is. Other times we know the question and we are looking for a speedy solution. A quick fix.

In medical terms this invariably means swallowing a pill. Pills are a phenomenal quick fix. They come with all sorts of pseudo guarantees, they have a powerful marketing machine behind them and they generally have the seal of approval of the medical community in general and your family doctor in particular.

To address the issue of EMFs and/or electrosensitivity there is no pill that can make it go away. If there was I would know about it.

But there are vitamins, or more precisely synthetic vitamins.

For many, vitamin pills are the key to protecting yourself from EMFs and staying healthy.

For me they are not. Here’s why.

SYNTHETIC AND FRACTIONATED VITAMINS

When you go into the store, 90% of the vitamins they carry on the shelf are either synthetic or fractionated. Synthetic means that they cook them up in the lab. Fractionated means that they maybe natural, as they occurred in nature, they definitely may have a natural source but the vitamin has been separated from its cofactors that normally occur with it in nature.

The synthetic vitamins have the components of what the vitamin actually contains but they do not have the same molecular structure. There is something different about the functional architecture of the synthetic vitamins as compared to the natural vitamins.

SYNTHETIC AND FRACTIONATED VITAMINS DANGERS

These synthetic vitamins and fractionated vitamins create deficiencies in your body when you take them because they need cofactors to be able to be utilized by your body. They rob from the other stores in your body to create the molecule and make it available to your physiology and anything that is not used is flushed out.

If you’ve had bright yellow pee after you have taken some of your vitamins this is a good indication of this. So we know you are going to create a deficiency in your body by taking these kinds of vitamins. You need to rob Peter to pay Paul; the end is worse than the beginning, essentially.

THE SOURCE OF THE VITAMINS

The other thing that is disconcerting is the source of some of these synthetic vitamins. For vitamin B most of the brands you get off your average store shelf are synthesized from coal tar. That’s also another reason why when you take these vitamins on an empty stomach and they make you feel so, they are not meant to be in your body. Coal tar is not a food.

Another example is vitamin E, the largest supplier of vitamin E, which is then capsulated and packaged by people who place on it their own personal labels, in America is Eastman, as in Eastman Powder. It is actually synthesized from the waste of the film processing. But Eastman aren’t going to get me onto their Vitamin E because they call it mixed tocopherols, they call that vitamin E whereas vitamin E in nature has a whole host of cofactors and synergistic factors in concert with it to make it the best ever.

ARE NATURAL VITAMINS THE ANSWER

Natural is a term to be treated with care because it is so poorly regulated. In the US for example, a vitamin has only to be 10% natural to call itself natural, guess what the other 10% is?

Many vitamins labeled as natural have synthetics added to increase their potency or to standardize the amount in a capsule. Often a salt form (this can be bitartrate, chloride, gluconate, hydrochloride, acetate, nitrate or succinate) is also added to the increase stability of the nutrient. So vitamin pills can never be truly natural.

HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM ELECTROSMOG

I know there are circumstances, for instance fighting a cold, that vitamin C can be helpful. So as a short term temporary measure vitamins can be of value. But taking vitamins long term is a whole different matter and this is what I’m talking about. It is unnecessary and harmful.

They are actually being flushed down the toilet anyway whenever you go to the bathroom. The high doses are an insult to your body. Your body just fights to get rid of them.

You don’t feel good when you take them anyway and that should be a sign and if you do feel more energetic that is probably an adrenal reaction to the toxin that you are taking into your body. The deficiencies these vitamins create are much worse than the original reason why you are taking them in the first place.

Nutritionally, what I recommend is not the quick fix of a vitamin pill but a varied and balanced diet, with plenty of whole grains and vegetables, some fruit and as much organic food as you can. Stay away from processed foods.

That and some basic EMF protection around the home can go a long way.

We are all living in a world with increasing levels of EMFs. These EMFs are a toxin. Why take vitamins which potentially bring you into contact with more toxins?

http://www.electricsense.com/1713/can-vitamins-protect-you-from-electrosmog/

Are we ignoring the dangers of mobile phones?

To some scientists, they’re deadlier than cigarettes; to others they’re harmless. Will we ever know the truth about mobile phones? Julia Llewellyn Smith finds out.

In 1996, Neil Whitfield, a sales manager from Wigan, was given his first mobile phone by his company. “It was introduced as a nice, cuddly friend. It had all of your mates’ contact details on it. It was always in your pocket or pressed against your ear,” he says.

However, within a short space of time Whitfield, a father of six who was then in his late thirties, started suffering terrible headaches. “Then my hearing deteriorated and I kept forgetting things, which was not like me.” A scan revealed he had an acoustic neuroma – a rare brain tumour that grows on a nerve in the brain near the ear. Without surgery, he was told, he had five years to live.

“The specialist asked if I used a mobile a lot. When I said yes, he replied: ‘Mobiles will be the smoking gun of the 21st century.’ He sowed a seed in my mind.” 

Whitfield, now 56, is one of a growing and vociferous group of people who are convinced that mobile phones are killing us. A phone, they point out, along with cordless phones and Wi-Fi, works in the same way as a miniature microwave, emitting electromagnetic radiation.

Admittedly, this radiation is at too low a frequency to heat human tissue, but there’s a large amount of evidence that it could affect the protective barrier between the brain and blood, allowing toxins to enter. There is also evidence that mobiles could be damaging our immune systems, reducing sperm motility and causing tumours, Alzheimer’s, strokes and autism.

It’s not just individuals like Whitfield who believe this, but a number of eminent scientists and physicians. Two years ago, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organisation, published a report, reclassifying radiation from mobiles from category 3, with “no conclusive evidence” of causing cancer, to category 2b – a “possible human carcinogen” – along with diesel exhaust, chloroform, jet fuel, lead and DDT.

In October, the Italian Supreme Court ruled that a businessman’s brain tumour was caused by his use of a mobile for five or six hours a day for 12 years, paving the way for a potential host of legal actions from employees against employers.

Yet bodies like Cancer Research UK assure me not to worry. “We think it’s incredibly unlikely there’s any link between phones and cancer, with the slight caveat it’s a relatively new technology so we can’t be sure of any long-term effects,” says Sarah Williams, senior health information and evidence officer.

To the layperson, the science behind all of this is mind-numbingly complex. For virtually every assertion of risk, there’s another asserting no risk.

“None of the research has been conclusive. When we do a meta-analysis of it all there’s no clear effect in either direction. The studies that show phones don’t cause cancer are balanced out by studies that show they do,” says Williams.The anti-mobile lobby disagree. They cite the “precautionary principle” – a statutory requirement in EU law that basically can be translated as: “new technology is guilty until proven innocent”. Until more research is done and phones have been in general use longer, they say it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Official advice from the NHS is to limit our mobile usage if we want to avoid exposure to radio waves. Children in particular should only use them in emergencies, because if there is any risk, their thinner skulls and developing brains would make them much more vulnerable to potential damage.

Other countries have taken this a step further. France has banned all mobile phone advertising aimed at under-12s, while legislation is being introduced to make it compulsory to sell all phones with earphones. Canada and Russia have also advised caution and the Israeli government is considering printing health warnings on phones, as on cigarette packets. Meanwhile, several countries are implementing or considering a total ban of Wi-Fi in schools.

Official NHS advice suggests that children under 12 should
only use mobiles sparingly.

So what is the truth of the matter? Are mobiles really dangerous? There is no question that some of those sounding the alarm belong to that subset of humanity who see conspiracies everywhere they look. But, investigating the subject, it became clear to me that the arguments against phones are not all the products of paranoid minds. Far from it. The fact is, considering how widespread phones are (more than 5.3 billion mobiles are in use out of a global population of 7 billion) anything that proved they were dangerous would be a highly inconvenient truth. “Mobile phones is an issue we all bury our heads in the sand about,” confirms Denis Henshaw, professor of physics and head of the Human Radiation Effects group at Bristol University. “The first mobile phone technology was rolled out without really any consideration for the long-term effects, just like asbestos and smoking. The government rakes in billions from the technology, in taxes from the mobile phone companies and licensing of the networks. The new generation really doesn’t want to know about any potential ill effects.”

Think of the tobacco companies – says the anti-phone lobby – who concealed the dangers of smoking and the addictiveness of nicotine and supported their position with numerous deceptive studies. Or asbestos producers who hid evidence that the mineral was dangerous even though tens of thousands of workers were dying from exposure.

Mobiles are a multi-trillion-dollar industry, even bigger than pharmaceuticals, and with a sizeable lobbying arm. Nearly every study that’s proven mobiles to be safe has been funded by the industry, though scientists involved in such studies point out funds are usually distributed by neutral bodies, so they have no way of knowing the source.

Scientists who’ve discovered displeasing evidence have spoken about threats being issued to remove funding and pressure put on employers to sack them. But, at the same time, scientists accused of being in cahoots with big business are indignant. Anthony Swerdlow, professor of epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research, headed last year’s International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) report into mobile safety, concluding there was “no clear evidence” mobiles threatened public health.

Online, I find all sorts of attacks ranging from accusations that Swerdlow has shares in the mobile industry (he has a few shares in BT) and doesn’t own a mobile (he does). “Where scientists do have a great deal of self-interest is in getting the answers right as far as possible,” he says. “Our long-term careers depend not on money from the phone industry but on having a reputation and track record for doing good science and making sound scientific judgments. If scientists conduct poor studies or make biased judgments, they harm their reputations and damage their careers.”

While researching this article, word reached me – from impartial sources – of reputable scientists whose research had led them to banning their children from using mobiles and a neurologist who refused to sleep with her phone charging in the bedroom because she was convinced the electromagnetic fields emitted by mobiles were responsible for the rising number of strokes she was seeing. But they didn’t respond to my emails or calls.

Are they reluctant to express their doubts publicly because they rely on the industry to provide them with data, or because – without hard evidence to support them – they don’t want to be dubbed crackpot?

The crux of the debate hangs on whether this radiation can damage cells. The pro-mobile lobby stress that ionic radiation is associated with cancer because it can break biochemical bonds in the body. A mobile’s electromagnetic radiation, on the other hand, has too low frequencies and too weak a signal to be able to heat human tissue and damage DNA molecules.

But many disagree. In 1975, before mobiles were invented, US neuroscientist Allan Frey surprised the scientific community with a paper describing his work on the blood-brain barrier, the vital protective layer between the brain and our blood supply. The barrier is so protective that normally when blue dye is injected into animals or humans, the body turns blue while the brain remains its natural, grey colour.

But in Frey’s experiments, microwaves pulsed at certain modulations sent dye leaking into rats’ brains within minutes. Rats have very similar brains to humans. This would mean that the brain’s environment, which needs to be extremely stable for nerve cells to function properly, can be perturbed in all kinds of dangerous ways and exposed to toxins. Subsequent research has expanded and compounded this work.

“People say there’s no plausible biological hypothesis for how electromagnetic radiation can damage cells – well speak for yourself,” says Prof Henshaw, who is an adviser to Mobilewise, a group that issues safety guidance to children. “Research is moving so fast, I receive five to 10 papers a day on the effects of radiofrequency. We don’t know everything.” Prof Henshaw does not agree that primary DNA damage is needed to cause cancer. He cites research into magnetite crystals, that are found in the human brain. Electromagnetic radiation is shown to physically vibrate these particles and there’s speculation this could make cells think they’re under attack.

“They’ll find it stressful and this could affect the mechanism and we know that some cancers are caused by mechanics,” he says.

There is also a growing school of thought that mobiles can make us more vulnerable to disease. Experiments on birds’ cryptochrome, a molecule in their eyes used for navigation, have shown it can be disturbed by the use of radio frequencies, far below those of mobile frequencies. These cryptochromes, also found in humans, help us detect light and therefore have a vital effect on our secretion of melatonin, the hormone that plays an important role in bolstering the immune system.

An increasing number of people are claiming to be “electrosensitive”, allergic to the electromagnetic fields that power mobiles, to the point where they’ve had to quit their jobs or move house, because of the ill effects.

“Over the past three or four years, I’ve seen a dozen or so patients who’ve had problems because of electromagnetic fields, from those suffering occasional headaches to those left quite severely disabled,” says Dr Andrew Tresidder, a GP in Chard, Somerset. “When I advise them to switch off their Wi-Fi routers and cordless phones at night, it often appears to alleviate their symptoms.” Many official bodies, including the Health Protection Agency, dismiss electrosensitivity as a psychological phenomenon. “They haven’t seen the patients I’ve seen,” says Dr Tresidder. “Whenever there’s anything that disrupts conventional thinking, there’s rearguard action trying to dismiss and rubbish any study. I think technology’s wonderful and we can’t escape it, but I also think in five years’ time if we don’t pay attention to the evidence, we could be facing a public health disaster.” Cancer Registry statistics for the past decade show that the number of brain tumours has remained fairly static – the period in which mobile phone uptake has been greatest. But this, the doubters argue, is insufficient reassurance as brain tumours have a long latency period of up to 40 years.

Although the phone industry strenuously denies its products have any links to cancer, it covers its back, using tiny print to counsel holding the phone at least 15mm from the body. BlackBerry’s instructions advise a distance of 25mm and keeping phones away from pregnant abdomens or the abdomens of teenagers.

I still can’t contemplate abandoning my phone. But I have dusted off the Bluetooth earpiece I’ve never used and persuaded my reluctant husband not to leave his phone charging in the bedroom. I’m considering buying a shield, placed in the ear, that is supposed to deflect radiation, but I can find no studies to prove such gadgets actually work.

Neil Whitfield’s operation on his neuroma was successful, but he was left deaf in his left ear and still gets headaches and facial twitches. He left his job, which relied on mobile use, and now refuses to use a mobile.

“Now, when I haven’t a number to give people they think I’m trying to avoid them, or I’m silly, a crank. They think: ‘That will never happen to me’. But when you have had a brain operation like me, you err on the side of caution. In my opinion, if phones were a food, they’d long have been taken off the shelves and sent back to the lab for further investigations.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10059834/Are-we-ignoring-the-dangers-of-mobile-phones.html

Full Signal - A Documentary

“Now for the first time in human history, brain tumors are the number one cancer killer of children under the age of 18–for the first time in history.  That should tell you something.”– B. Blake Levitt interviewed in film, Full Signal.

Since 1997 and the onset of GSM telephony, more and more cellular antennas have been popping up in neighborhoods all around the world to support an ever-growing number of cell phone users.

In fact they have become so prolific in some parts of the world that they disappear into the landscape with the same subtlety as cars on the street. And those that don't 'disappear' are cleverly disguised as chimneys, flagpoles, or water towers.

Full Signal talks to scientists around the world who are researching the health effects related to cellular technology; to veteran journalists who have called attention to the issue for decades; to activists who are fighting to regulate the placement of antennas; and to lawyers and law makers who represent the people wanting those antennas regulated.

Filmed in Ten countries and Six US states, Full Signal examines the contradiction between health and finance, one of the many ironies of the fight to regulate antenna placement.

Tim Ferriss talks about Cell Phones & Sperm Damage

The best selling author Tim Ferris has been called "The Superman of Silicon Valley" by Wired magazine and nominated by Fast Company as one of the "Most Innovative Business People of 2007," is the author of "The 4-Hour Body".  In this video he speaks candidly about the effects of his GSM mobile phone on his sperm count and how GSM radiation could effect the fertility of men in the future.

Looming Health Crisis: Wireless Technology and the Toxification of America

As a multitude of hazardous wireless technologies are deployed in homes, schools and workplaces, government officials and industry representatives continue to insist on their safety despite growing evidence to the contrary. A major health crisis looms that is only hastened through the extensive deployment of “smart grid” technology.

In October 2009 at Florida Power and Light’s (FPL) solar energy station President Barack Obama announced that $3.4 billion of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act would be devoted to the country’s “smart energy grid” transition. Matching funds from the energy industry brought the total national Smart Grid investment to $8 billion. FPL was given $200 million of federal money to install 2.5 million “smart meters” on homes and businesses throughout the state.[1]

By now many residents in the United States and Canada have the smart meters installed on their dwellings. Each of these meters is equipped with an electronic cellular transmitter that uses powerful bursts of electromagnetic radiofrequency (RF) radiation to communicate with nearby meters that together form an interlocking network transferring detailed information on residents’ electrical usage back to the utility every few minutes or less. Such information can easily be used to determine individual patterns of behavior based on power consumption.

The smart grid technology is being sold to the public as a way to “empower” individual energy consumers by allowing them to access information on their energy usage so that they may eventually save money by programming “smart” (i.e, wireless enabled) home appliances and equipment that will coordinate their operability with the smart meter to run when electrical rates are lowest. In other words, a broader plan behind smart grid technology involves a tiered rate system for electricity consumption that will be set by the utility to which customers will have no choice but to conform.

Because of power companies’ stealth rollout of smart meters a large majority of the public still remains unaware of the dangers they pose to human health. This remains the case even though states such as Maine have adopted an “opt out” provision for their citizens. The devices have not been safety-tested by Underwriters Laboratory and thus lack the UL approval customary for most electronics.[2] Further, power customers are typically told by their utilities that the smart meter only communicates with the power company “a few times per day” to transmit information on individual household energy usage. However, when individuals obtained the necessary equipment to do their own testing they found the meters were emitting bursts of RF radiation throughout the home far more intense than a cell phone call every minute or less.[3]

America’s Telecom-friendly Policy for RF Exposure
A growing body of medical studies is now linking cumulative RF exposure to DNA disruption, cancer, birth defects, miscarriages, and autoimmune diseases. Smart meters significantly contribute to an environment already polluted by RF radiation through the pervasive stationing of cellular telephone towers in or around public spaces and consumers’ habitual use of wireless technologies. In the 2000 Salzburg Resolution European scientists recommended the maximum RF exposure for humans to be no more than one tenth of a microwatt per square centimeter. In the United States RF exposure limits are 1,000 microwatts per centimeter, with no limits for long term exposure.[4] Such lax standards have been determined by outdated science and the legal and regulatory maneuvering of the powerful telecommunications and wireless industries.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ceased studying the health effects of radiofrequency radiation when the Senate Appropriations Committee cut the department’s funding and forbade it from further research into the area.[5] Thereafter RF limits were codified as mere “guidelines” based on the EPA’s tentative findings and are to this day administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

These weakly enforced standards are predicated on the alleged “thermal effect” of RF. In other words, if the energy emitted from a wireless antenna or device is not powerful enough to heat the skin or flesh then no danger is posed to human health.[6] This reasoning is routinely put forward by utilities installing smart meters on residences, telecom companies locating cellular transmission towers in populated areas, and now school districts across the US allowing the installation of cell towers on school campuses.[7]

The FCC’s authority to impose this standard was further reinforced with the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that included a provision lobbied for by the telecom industry preventing state and local governments from evaluating potential environmental and health effects when locating cell towers “so long as ‘such facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions.’”[8]

In 2001 an alliance of scientists and engineers with the backing of the Communications Workers of America filed a federal lawsuit hoping the Supreme Court would reconsider the FCC’s obsolete exposure guidelines and the Telecom Act’s overreach into state and local jurisdiction. The high court refused to hear the case. When the same group asked the FCC to reexamine its guidelines in light of current scientific studies the request was rebuffed.[9] Today in all probability millions are suffering from a variety of immediate and long-term health effects from relentless EMF and RF exposure that under the thermal effect rationale remain unrecognized or discounted by the telecom industry and regulatory authorities alike.

Growing Evidence of Health Risks From RF Exposure
The main health concern with electromagnetic radiation emitted by smart meters and other wireless technologies is that EMF and RF cause a breakdown in the communication between cells in the body, interrupting DNA repair and weakening tissue and organ function. These are the findings of Dr. George Carlo, who oversaw a comprehensive research group commissioned by the cell phone industry in the mid-1990s.

When Carlo’s research began to reveal how there were indeed serious health concerns with wireless technology, the industry sought to bury the results and discredit Carlo. Yet Carlo’s research has since been upheld in a wealth of subsequent studies and has continuing relevance given the ubiquity of wireless apparatuses and the even more powerful smart meters. “One thing all these conditions have in common is a disruption, to varying degrees, of intercellular communication,” Carlo observes. “When we were growing up, TV antennas were on top of our houses and such waves were up in the sky. Cell phones and Wi-Fi have brought those things down to the street, integrated them into the environment, and that’s absolutely new.”[10]

In 2007 the BioInitiative Working Group, a worldwide body of scientists and public health experts, released a 650-page document with over 2000 studies linking RF and EMF exposure to cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, DNA damage, immune system dysfunction, cellular damage and tissue reduction.[11]

In May 2011 the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer categorized “radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless cellphone use.”[12]

In November 2011 the Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), a national organization of medical and osteopathic physicians, called on California’s Public Utilities Commission to issue a moratorium on the continued installation of smart meters in residences and schools “based on a scientific assessment of the current available literature.” “[E]xisting FCC guidelines for RF safety that have been used to justify installations of smart meters,” the panel wrote, “only look at thermal tissue damage and are obsolete, since many modern studies show metabolic and genomic damage from RF and ELF exposure below the level of intensity which heats tissues … More modern literature shows medically and biologically significant effects of RF and ELF at lower energy densities. These effects accumulate over time, which is an important consideration given the chronic nature of exposure from ‘smart meters.’”[13]

In April 2012 the AAEM issued a formal position paper on the health effects of RF and EMF exposure based on a literature review of the most recent research. The organization pointed to how government and industry arguments alleging the doubtful nature of the science on non-thermal effects of RF were not defensible in light of the newest studies. “Genetic damage, reproductive defects, cancer, neurological degeneration and nervous system dysfunction, immune system dysfunction, cognitive effects, protein and peptide damage, kidney damage, and developmental effects have all been reported in the peer‐reviewed scientific literature,” AAEM concluded.[14]

Radiating Children
The rollout of smart meters proceeds alongside increased installation of wireless technology and cell phone towers in and around schools in the US. In 2010 Professor Magda Havas conducted a study of schools in 50 US state capitols and Washington DC to determine students’ potential exposure to nearby cell towers. A total 6,140 schools serving 2.3 million students were surveyed using theantennasearch.com database. Of these, 13% of the schools serving 299,000 students have a cell tower within a quarter mile of school grounds, and another 50% of the schools where 1,145,000 attend have a tower within a 0.6 mile radius. The installation of wireless networks and now smart meters on and around school properties further increases children’s RF exposure.[15]

Many school districts that are strapped for cash in the face of state budget cuts are willing to ignore the abundance of scientific research on RF dangers and sign on with telecom companies to situate cell towers directly on school premises. Again, the FCC’s thermal effect rule is invoked to justify tower placement together with a disregard of the available studies.

The School District of Palm Beach County, the eleventh largest school district in the US, provides one such example. Ten of its campuses already have cell towers on their grounds while the district ponders lifting a ban established in 1997 that would allow for the positioning of even more towers. When concerned parents contacted the school district for an explanation of its wireless policies, the administration assembled a document, “Health Organization Information and Academic Research Studies Regarding the Health Effects of Cell Tower Signals.” The report carefully selected pronouncements from telecom industry funded organizations such as the American Cancer Society and out-of-date scientific studies supporting the FCC’s stance on wireless while excluding the long list of studies and literature reviews pointing to the dangers of RF and EMF radiation emitted by wireless networks and cell towers. [16]

The Precautionary Principle / Conclusion
Surrounded by the sizable and growing body of scientific literature pointing to the obvious dangers of wireless technology, utility companies installing smart meters on millions of homes across the US  and school officials who accommodate cell towers on their grounds are performing an extreme disservice to their often vulnerable constituencies. Indeed, such actions constitute the reckless long term endangerment of public health for short term gain, sharply contrasting with more judicious decision making.

The 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment & Development adopted the precautionary principle as a rule to follow in the situations utilities and school districts find themselves in today. “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”[17] In exercising the precautionary principle, public governance and regulatory bodies should “take preventive action in the face of scientific uncertainty to prevent harm. The focus is no longer on measuring or managing harm, but preventing harm.”[18]

Along these lines, the European Union and the Los Angeles School District have prohibited cell phone towers on school grounds until the scientific research on the human health effects of RF are conclusive. The International Association of Fire Fighters also interdicted cell towers on fire stations pending “’a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure to low-intensity [radio frequency/microwave] radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.’”[19]

Unwitting families with smart meters on their homes and children with cell towers humming outside their classrooms suggest the extent to which the energy, telecom and wireless industries have manipulated the regulatory process to greatly privilege profits over public health. Moreover, it reveals how the population suffers for want of meaningful and conclusive information on the very real dangers of RF while the telecom and wireless interests successfully cajole the media into considering one scientific study at a time.

“When you put the science together, we come to the irrefutable conclusion that there’s a major health crisis coming, probably already underway,” George Carlo cautions. “Not just cancer, but also learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, autism, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and psychological and behavioral problems—all mediated by the same mechanism. That’s why we’re so worried. Time is running out.”[20]

Notes

[1] Energy.gov, “President Obama Announces $3.4 Billion Investment to Spur Transition to Smart Energy Grid,” October 27, 2009,
http://energy.gov/articles/president-obama-announces-34-billion-investment-spur-transition-smart-energy-grid
[2] Ilya Sandra Perlingieri, “Radiofrequency Radiation: The Invisible Hazards of Smart Meters,” August 19, 2011, GlobalReserach.ca, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26082
[3] Dr. Bill Deagle, “Smart Meters: A Call for Public Outrage,” Rense.com, August 30, 2011,http://www.rense.com/general94/smartt.htm. Some meters installed in California by Pacific Gas and Electric carry a “’switching mode power-supply’ that ‘emit sharp spikes of millisecond bursts’ around the clock and is a chief cause of ‘dirty electricity.’” See Perlingieri, “Radiofrequency Radiation: The Invisible Hazards of Smart Meters.” This author similarly measured bursts of radiation in excess of 2,000 microwatts per meter every 30 to 90 seconds during the day, and once every two-to-three minutes at night.
[4] Magda Havas, BRAG Antenna Ranking of Schools, 2010,
http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/BRAG_Schools.pdf
[5] Susan Luzzaro, “Field of Cell Phone Tower Beams,” San Diego Reader, May 18, 2011,
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2011/may/18/citylights2-cell-phone-tower/?page=1&
[6] FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety
[7] Luzzaro, “Field of Cell Phone Tower Beams”; Marc Freeman, “Cell Towers Could Be Coming to More Schools,” South Florida Sun Sentinel, January 5, 2012,
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-01-05/news/fl-cell-towers-schools-palm-20120105_1_cell-towers-cellular-phone-towers-stealth-towers
[8] Amy Worthington, “The Radiation Poisoning of America,” GlobalResearch.ca, October 9, 2007,http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7025
[9] Worthington, “The Radiation Poisoning of America.”
[10] Sue Kovach, “The Hidden Dangers of Cell Phone Radiation,” Life Extension Magazine, August 2007,http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2007
/aug2007_report_cellphone_radiation_01.htm
[11] Susan Luzzaro, “Field of Cell Phone Tower Beams”; Bioinitiative Report: A Rationale For a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard For Electromagnetic Fields,http://www.bioinitiative.org/freeaccess/report/index.htm.
[12] World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer, “IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic,” May 31, 2011, www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf; Joseph Mercola, “Be Aware: These Cell Phones Can Emit 28 Times More Radiation,” Mercola.com, June 18, 2011,
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/18/finally-experts-admit-cellphones-are-a-carcinogen.aspx.
[13] American Academy of Environmental Medicine, “Proposed Decision of Commissioner Peevy [Mailed 11/22/2011] Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California,” January 19, 2012.www.aaemonline.org
[14] American Academy of Environmental Medicine, “The American Academy of Environmental Medicine Calls for Immediate Caution regarding Smart Meter Installation,” April 12, 2012,http://www.aaemonline.org/
[15] Havas, BRAG Antenna Ranking of Schools, 31-38.
[16] Donna Goldstein, “Health Organization Information and Academic Research Studies Regarding the Health Effects of Cell Tower Signals,”Planning and Real Estate Development, Palm Beach County School District, January 30, 2012.
[17] Havas, BRAG Antenna Ranking of Schools, 17.
[18] Multinational Monitor, “Precautionary Precepts: The Power and Potential of the Precautionary Principle: An Interview with Carolyn Raffensperger,” September 2004,http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/09012004/september04interviewraffen.html.
[19] Luzzaro, “Field of Cell Phone Tower Beams.”
[20] Kovach, “The Hidden Dangers of Cell Phone Radiation.”

James F. Tracy is Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University. He is an affiliate of Project Censored and blogs at memorygap.org.

This article originally appeared on : Global Research

Source: http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/looming-health-crisis-wireless-technology-and-the-toxification-of-america/34290/