How to Lower Your EMF Risks With Crystal Healing

How to Lower Your EMF Risks With Crystal Healing

Powerful Crystals to Help Lower Your EMF Risks
Have you noticed over the last few years people have become much more concerned with EMF (electromagnetic frequency) radiation & now a new possible threat; nuclear radiation in the atmosphere? AKA, EM Pollution.
Some symptoms of excess EMF radiation are fatigue, joint & muscle pain, decreased attention span, memory loss, difficulty focusing & insomnia. Yuck.
In my analysis & research I noted these are the same symptoms of being ungrounded!
Could it be that too much EMF causes us to become ungrounded?

EM Pollution

In my Creating Sacred Spaces & Self Protection Using Crystals Class we discuss specific crystals & stones you could use to counteract EMF pollution. Crystals you don't want to use are any kind of silicate crystals: quartz, lepidolite, etc.
Why? For the simple reason that they easily slide into resonance with electronics & microwave radiation. That's what we don't want. That property is why silicon (what silicates & quartz are made of) is so widely used in technology! It's an excellent semi-conductor.
The best stones to use for EMF protection are ferromagnetic (iron containing) stones like lodestone, magnetite, hematite, pyrite.
BUT, be certain not to have any magnetic stones near your laptop = CERTAIN LAPTOP DEATH due to hard-drive being erased.
I also like black tourmaline for this (even though its a silicate). The reason I throw that 1 into the hat too is b/c it’s got just the right combo of elements & it has the added yin-benefit of having iron in it. Black tourmaline is known for its ability to transmute & "cleanse" energy & it actually has pyroelectric properties too. But I don't want to slam too much science into 1 post. Since I can't tell if your eye are glazing over yet, I'll have to trust that this is enough. wink emoticon
Another recent favorite for this sort of protection is shungite. As show in the pic, those 2 shungite pieces from my crystal grid that surrounds my wifi router.
Now! Here's the KICKER that I've discovered!! Most of these are the same exact stones many cultures teach to use to ground ourselves!!! How perfecto! Don't you just love when the ancient knowledge & new dovetails together like that?
So here are some things you can do; both using stones & otherwise:
• Make a lodestone (magnetic magnetite) pendulum, spin it through your EMF to strengthen weak areas
• Place Kernite or Colemanite crystals (just got a SWEET specimen!) in a low dose nuclear radiation area to absorb; these crystals are Boron-based, thereby accepting & ionizing radiation
• Unplug your bedroom (listen to Warren's recording above for how's & why's)
• Children should not use cell phones due to their higher susceptibility
• Reduce your own cell phone use
• Use a land line whenever possible
• Reduce or eliminate your use of wireless (you can put it on a timer so at least part of the time its not radiating throughout your house, physical body & auric field). This is a tuffy for me seeing as I live in a busy suburb-y/city where I receive 5 wireless signals radiating from my neighbors!
• Turn your cell phone off when not in use
I don't like to fear monger but I feel its good to get this info out there from time to time & remind ourselves to clean up our energy & balance.

Cell Phones – An Indeterminate Health Risk

The Swedish neuro-oncologist, Leif Salford says that we might not know it, but we are a part of an unauthorized experiment- “the largest biological experiment ever.” Cell phones are a form of high-powered microwave transmitters, yet we keep them close to our body.
Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are generated by mobile phones, while electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is emitted by them. All the current electronics are using this feature and they make use of alternating current (AC) power or wireless communication. Every device emits different amounts of radiation, having distinct characteristics.

It may take years for the health effects of EMF exposure to show and may range from various types of cancers to Alzheimer’s disease. This is the experiment that we are all part of and we do not know how many years it will take before we could see the results of this experiment. While we continue to wait for the results, we could be subjected to the health risks of EMF. The debate over the dangers of EMF has two sides. The scientists believe that precautionary measures should be taken to reduce the dangers. Whilst, others believe that evidence is required before decisions are made about taking any kind of action. These include representatives of the industries who fear the loss of profits because of reduced purchase and use of electronic devices, so they promote the use of such devices.
The industry has been successful in its efforts at promoting the use of EMF generation technologies at a large scale, all over the world. However, there are other sources of EMF too, including the power grid. It generates the maximum level of EMF which affects every person living in America and also 75% of the world population. In this era, we are exposed to electromagnetic radiation almost constantly 24/7.

The bioeffects as a result of EMF exposure are still being studied and are in the initial stages of being identified. Right now it is difficult to determine what amounts of exposure (e.g. 20 minutes of daily mobile phone use for 10 years) can cause a specific disease (e.g. Cancer). The scientists are also unable to identify the level of EMF exposure that is considered ‘safe’.
One thing that science is sure of is that every living being is affected by all types of electromagnetic radiation. Science has come up with a lot of bioeffects that stem from EMF exposure. It has been discovered that EMF is responsible for damaging DNA and causing gene mutations. This is the first step towards the development of cancers and calls for changes in safety standards. Such DNA damage can occur from the level of radiation that is emitted by something as trivial as a cell phone.
According to a number of separate studies, the risk of specific brain tumours increases by two to three times when exposed to EMF from mobile phones for several years. The risk of developing a tumour on that side of the head where the cell phone is used, for people who have used cell phones daily for 10 years or more, is as high as 240%, as discussed in a review that took an average of the data from 16 studies. According to an Israeli study, people with a cell phone use of at least 22 hours a month have a 50 % chance of developing cancers of the salivary gland. Between 1970 and 2006, Israel has experienced a four times increase in these types of tumours. Cancer rates were found to be three times higher amongst those people living within 400m of a mobile phone transmission tower for a period of 10 years or more, compared to those who were living farther away.  EMF, including power frequencies and radio frequencies have been designated as a potential cause of cancer by the World Health Organization.

Magnetic Field Exposure and Cancer

1. What are electric and magnetic fields?

   Electric and magnetic fields are invisible areas of energy that are produced by electricity, which is the movement of electrons, or current, through a wire.
   An electric field is produced by voltage, which is the pressure used to push the electrons through the wire, much like water being pushed through a pipe. As the voltage increases, the electric field increases in strength.
   A magnetic field results from the flow of current through wires or electrical devices and increases in strength as the current increases. The strength of a magnetic field decreases rapidly with increased distance from its source.
   Electric fields are produced whether or not a device is turned on, but magnetic fields are produced only when current is flowing, which usually requires a device to be turned on. Power lines produce magnetic fields continuously because current is always flowing through them.
   Electric and magnetic fields together are referred to as electromagnetic fields, or EMFs. There are both natural and human-made sources of EMFs. The earth’s magnetic field, which causes a compass to point North, is an example of a naturally occurring EMF. Power lines, wiring, and electrical appliances, such as electric shavers, hair dryers, computers, televisions, and electric blankets produce what are called extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs. ELF-EMFs have frequencies of up to 300 cycles per second, or Hertz (Hz); for example, the frequency of alternating current in power lines is 50 or 60 Hz. Cell phones produce radiofrequency EMFs above the ELF range. For more information about cell phones, see the NCI Fact Sheet Cell Phones and Cancer Risk.
   Electric fields are easily shielded or weakened by walls and other objects, whereas magnetic fields can pass through buildings, living things, and most other materials. Consequently, magnetic fields are the component of ELF-EMFs that are usually studied in relation to their possible health effects.

2. Why are ELF-EMFs studied in relation to cancer?

   Any possible health effects of ELF-EMFs would be of concern because power lines and electrical appliances are present everywhere in modern life, and people are constantly encountering these fields, both in their homes and in certain workplaces. Also, the presence of ELF-EMFs in homes means that children are exposed. Even if ELF-EMFs were to increase an individual’s risk of disease only slightly, widespread exposure to ELF-EMFs could translate to meaningful increased risks at the population level.
   Several early epidemiologic studies raised the possibility of an association between certain cancers, especially childhood cancers, and ELF-EMFs. Most subsequent studies have not shown such an association, but scientists have continued to investigate the possibility that one exists.
   No mechanism by which ELF-EMFs could cause cancer has been identified. Unlike high-energy (ionizing) radiation, ELF-EMFs are low energy and non-ionizing and cannot damage DNA or cells directly. Some scientists have speculated that ELF-EMFs could cause cancer through other mechanisms, such as by reducing levels of the hormone melatonin. (There is some evidence that melatonin may suppress the development of certain tumors.) However, studies of animals exposed to ELF-EMFs have not provided any indications that ELF-EMF exposure is associated with cancer (1, 2).

3. What is the evidence for an association between magnetic field exposure and cancer in children? 

   Numerous epidemiologic studies and comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature have evaluated possible associations between exposure to ELF magnetic fields and risk of cancer in children (1, 3, 4). Most of the research has focused on leukemia and brain tumors, the two most common cancers in children. Studies have examined associations of these cancers with living near power lines, with magnetic fields in the home, and with exposure of parents to high levels of magnetic fields in the workplace.
   Exposure from power lines
   Although a study in 1979 pointed to a possible association between living near electric power lines and childhood leukemia (5), more recent studies have had mixed findings. Currently, researchers conclude that there is little evidence that exposure to ELF-EMFs from power lines causes leukemia, brain tumors, or any other cancers in children (1, 6–10).
   Exposure in homes
   Many studies have also looked for possible associations between magnetic fields measured in homes and residences and the risk of childhood cancers, especially leukemia. Individual studies have had varying results, but most have not found an association or have found it only for those children who lived in homes with very high levels of magnetic fields, which are present in few residences (11–14).
   To develop the most accurate estimates of the risks of leukemia in children from magnetic fields in the home, researchers have analyzed the combined data from many studies. In one such analysis that combined data from nine studies done in several countries, leukemia risk was increased only in those children with the highest exposure (a category that included less than 1 percent of the children); these children had a twofold excess risk of childhood leukemia (15). In another analysis that combined data from 15 individual studies, a similar increase in risk was seen in children with the highest exposure level (16). A more recent  analysis of seven studies published after 2000 found a similar trend, but the increase was not statistically significant (17).
   Overall, these analyses suggest that if there is any increase in leukemia risk from magnetic fields, it is restricted to children with the very highest exposure levels. But it is possible that this increase is not real, because if magnetic fields caused childhood leukemia, certain patterns would have been found, such as increasing risk with increasing levels of magnetic field exposure. Such patterns were not seen.
   Another way that people can be exposed to magnetic fields in the home is from household electrical appliances. Although magnetic fields near many electrical appliances are higher than those near power lines, appliances contribute less to a person’s total exposure to magnetic fields because most appliances are used only for short periods of time. Again, studies have not found consistent evidence for an association between the use of household electrical appliances and risk of childhood leukemia (18).
   Parental exposure and risk in children
   Several studies have examined possible associations between maternal or paternal exposure to high levels of magnetic fields before conception and/or during pregnancy and the risk of cancer in their future children. The results to date have been inconsistent (19, 20). Studies are ongoing to evaluate this question.
   Exposure and cancer survival
   A few studies have investigated whether magnetic field exposure is associated with prognosis or survival of children with leukemia. Several small retrospective studies of this question have yielded inconsistent results (21–23). An analysis that combined prospective data for more than 3000 children with acute lymphoid leukemia from eight countries showed that ELF magnetic field exposure was not associated with their survival or risk of relapse (24).

4. What is the evidence that magnetic field exposure is linked to cancer in adults?

   Although some studies have reported associations between ELF-EMF exposure and cancer in adults, other studies have not found evidence for such associations.
   The majority of epidemiologic studies have shown no relationship between breast cancer in women and exposure to ELF-EMFs in the home (25–28), although several individual studies have shown hints of an association (29, 30).
   Several studies conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s reported that people who worked in some electrical occupations (such as power station operators and phone line workers) had higher-than-expected rates of some types of cancer, particularly leukemia, brain tumors, and male breast cancer (1). Some occupational studies showed very small increases in the risks of leukemia and brain cancer, but these results were based on participants’ job titles and not on actual measurements of their exposures. More recent studies, including some that considered the participant’s job title as well as measurements of their exposures, have not shown consistent findings of an increasing risk of leukemia, brain tumors, or female breast cancer with increasing exposure to magnetic fields at work (29, 31–35).

5. Where can people find additional information on EMFs? 

   The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) website has information about EMFs and cancer.

Selected References

1. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, Part 1: Static and extremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields . IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans 2002; 80:1-395.
2. Lagroye I, Percherancier Y, Juutilainen J, De Gannes FP, Veyret B. ELF magnetic fields: Animal studies, mechanisms of action. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 2011; 107(3):369-373.
   [PubMed Abstract]
3. Ahlbom IC, Cardis E, Green A, et al. Review of the epidemiologic literature on EMF and Health. Environmental Health Perspectives 2001; 109 Suppl 6:911-933.
   [PubMed Abstract]
4. Schüz J. Exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and the risk of childhood cancer: Update of the epidemiological evidence. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 2011; 107(3):339-342.
   [PubMed Abstract]
5. Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 1979; 109(3):273-284.
   [PubMed Abstract]
6. Kleinerman RA, Kaune WT, Hatch EE, et al. Are children living near high-voltage power lines at increased risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia? American Journal of Epidemiology 2000; 151(5):512-515.
   [PubMed Abstract]
7. Kroll ME, Swanson J, Vincent TJ, Draper GJ. Childhood cancer and magnetic fields from high-voltage power lines in England and Wales: A case–control study. British Journal of Cancer 2010; 103(7):1122-1127.
   [PubMed Abstract]
8. Wünsch-Filho V, Pelissari DM, Barbieri FE, et al. Exposure to magnetic fields and childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia in São Paulo, Brazil. Cancer Epidemiology 2011; 35(6):534-539.
   [PubMed Abstract]
9. Sermage-Faure C, Demoury C, Rudant J, et al. Childhood leukaemia close to high-voltage power lines--the Geocap study, 2002-2007. British Journal of Cancer 2013; 108(9):1899-1906.
   [PubMed Abstract]
10. Kabuto M, Nitta H, Yamamoto S, et al. Childhood leukemia and magnetic fields in Japan: A case–control study of childhood leukemia and residential power-frequency magnetic fields in Japan. International Journal of Cancer 2006; 119(3):643-650.
    [PubMed Abstract]
11. Linet MS, Hatch EE, Kleinerman RA, et al. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. New England Journal of Medicine 1997; 337(1):1-7.
    [PubMed Abstract]
12. Kheifets L, Ahlbom A, Crespi CM, et al. A pooled analysis of extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and childhood brain tumors. American Journal of Epidemiology 2010; 172(7):752-761.
    [PubMed Abstract]
13. Mezei G, Gadallah M, Kheifets L. Residential magnetic field exposure and childhood brain cancer: A meta-analysis. Epidemiology 2008; 19(3):424-430.
    [PubMed Abstract]
14. Does M, Scélo G, Metayer C, et al. Exposure to electrical contact currents and the risk of childhood leukemia. Radiation Research 2011; 175(3):390-396.
    [PubMed Abstract]
15. Ahlbom A, Day N, Feychting M, et al. A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. British Journal of Cancer 2000; 83(5):692-698.
    [PubMed Abstract]
16. Greenland S, Sheppard AR, Kaune WT, Poole C, Kelsh MA. A pooled analysis of magnetic fields, wire codes, and childhood leukemia. Childhood Leukemia-EMF Study Group. Epidemiology 2000; 11(6):624-634.
    [PubMed Abstract]
17. Kheifets L, Ahlbom A, Crespi CM, et al. Pooled analysis of recent studies on magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. British Journal of Cancer 2010; 103(7):1128-1135.
    [PubMed Abstract]
18. Hatch EE, Linet MS, Kleinerman RA, et al. Association between childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia and use of electrical appliances during pregnancy and childhood. Epidemiology 1998; 9(3):234-245.
    [PubMed Abstract]
19. Infante-Rivard C, Deadman JE. Maternal occupational exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields during pregnancy and childhood leukemia. Epidemiology 2003; 14(4):437-441.
    [PubMed Abstract]
20. Hug K, Grize L, Seidler A, Kaatsch P, Schüz J. Parental occupational exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields and childhood cancer: A German case–control study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2010; 171(1):27-35.
    [PubMed Abstract]
21. Svendsen AL, Weihkopf T, Kaatsch P, Schüz J. Exposure to magnetic fields and survival after diagnosis of childhood leukemia: A German cohort study. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2007; 16(6):1167-1171.
    [PubMed Abstract]
22. Foliart DE, Pollock BH, Mezei G, et al. Magnetic field exposure and long-term survival among children with leukaemia. British Journal of Cancer 2006; 94(1):161-164.
    [PubMed Abstract]
23. Foliart DE, Mezei G, Iriye R, et al. Magnetic field exposure and prognostic factors in childhood leukemia. Bioelectromagnetics 2007; 28(1):69-71.
    [PubMed Abstract]
24. Schüz J, Grell K, Kinsey S, et al. Extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and survival from childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: An international follow-up study. Blood Cancer Journal 2012; 2:e98.
    [PubMed Abstract]
25. Schoenfeld ER, O'Leary ES, Henderson K, et al. Electromagnetic fields and breast cancer on Long Island: A case–control study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 158(1):47-58.
    [PubMed Abstract]
26. London SJ, Pogoda JM, Hwang KL, et al. Residential magnetic field exposure and breast cancer risk: A nested case–control study from a multiethnic cohort in Los Angeles County, California. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 158(10):969-980.
    [PubMed Abstract]
27. Davis S, Mirick DK, Stevens RG. Residential magnetic fields and the risk of breast cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 2002; 155(5):446-454.
    [PubMed Abstract]
28. Kabat GC, O'Leary ES, Schoenfeld ER, et al. Electric blanket use and breast cancer on Long Island. Epidemiology 2003; 14(5):514-520.
    [PubMed Abstract]
29. Kliukiene J, Tynes T, Andersen A. Residential and occupational exposures to 50-Hz magnetic fields and breast cancer in women: A population-based study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2004; 159(9):852-861.
    [PubMed Abstract]
30. Zhu K, Hunter S, Payne-Wilks K, Roland CL, Forbes DS. Use of electric bedding devices and risk of breast cancer in African-American women. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 158(8):798-806.
    [PubMed Abstract]
31. Tynes T, Haldorsen T. Residential and occupational exposure to 50 Hz magnetic fields and hematological cancers in Norway. Cancer Causes & Control 2003; 14(8):715-720.
    [PubMed Abstract]
32. Labrèche F, Goldberg MS, Valois MF, et al. Occupational exposures to extremely low frequency magnetic fields and postmenopausal breast cancer. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 2003; 44(6):643-652.
    [PubMed Abstract]
33. Willett EV, McKinney PA, Fear NT, Cartwright RA, Roman E. Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields and acute leukaemia: Analysis of a case-control study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2003; 60(8):577-583.
    [PubMed Abstract]
34. Coble JB, Dosemeci M, Stewart PA, et al. Occupational exposure to magnetic fields and the risk of brain tumors. Neuro-Oncology 2009; 11(3):242-249.
    [PubMed Abstract]
35. Li W, Ray RM, Thomas DB, et al. Occupational exposure to magnetic fields and breast cancer among women textile workers in Shanghai, China. American Journal of Epidemiology 2013; 178(7):1038-1045.
    [PubMed Abstract]

Industrial fans The Hidden Potential risks Of Electromagnetic Fields

Many common domestic appliances transmit possibly destructive electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Shield yourself by determining difficulties spots and having these precautions.

Electromagnetic fields existed prolonged prior to Thomas Edison flipped the activate the lightbulb. These invisible forces - electric powered and magnetic fields designed by flowing electrical currents - are made by all the things from lightning bolts to frequent household appliances which make our lives much easier. But in accordance to your number of researchers, EMFs might also trigger hampton bay parts (www.markshowellinteriors.com) serious hurt.

We by now realize that high-frequency EMFs these as UVB rays through the solar and ionizing radiation from X-rays for instance, can cause cancer. But considerably less is understood about publicity to reduce frequencies, like the 60-hertz (Hz) electrical fields emitted by TVs and food processors, or perhaps the 300-Hz to 300,000-megahertz (MHz) radiofrequency fields (RFs) made by computer system monitors, microwave ovens and mobile phones.

The topic has proved controversial. Numerous epidemiological reports have found amplified cancer pitfalls between power-line, cable and electrical workers, and large celing fans charges of childhood leukemia in families dwelling in close proximity to high-voltage electric power strains. Nonetheless similar studies have failed to validate these connections, and laboratory investigate has not proven that EMFs result in most cancers in residing tissue. Any time a top EMF researcher was uncovered to have falsified knowledge in two government-funded lab research, numerous concluded that the EMF-cancer connection could be dismissed.

Still, quite a few researchers keep on to suspect that EMFs, even the low-level kinds cieling fans located from the residence, are certainly not completely benign. In 1998, the Nationwide Institute of Environmental Wellness Sciences (NIEHS) labeled EMFs a possible carcinogen. Various laboratory studies have revealed alterations in hormone concentrations, accelerated tumor growth and also other mobile changes resulting from EMF publicity. There looks to become enough details demonstrating association involving ceiling paddle fans most cancers and EMF to generate men and women feel there a little something goes on.

With a great deal of continue to unclear regarding the consequences of those power fields, the best tactic is one of prudent avoidance. Stay about 4 ft away from appliances when they're in use and minimize the quantity of your time you shell out on your cellular telephone or around nearly anything else that emits significant RFs. What follows is a brief examine some very likely EMF sizzling spots in and close to your own home.

In the kitchen:

Microwave
Blender
Coffee maker
Slow cookers
Dishwasher
Food processor
Garbage disposal
Electric oven
Refrigerator
Toaster

In the lounge:

TV
Stereo
Laptop
Desktop computer
Telephone
Cell phone
Window air conditioner
Ceiling Fan

In the bathroom/laundry home:

Electric shaver
Hair dryer
Washer
Dryer
Iron

Other sources:

Vacuum cleaner
Electric clock
Baby check
Sewing machine
Electric blanket
Power tools
Copy/fax machines
Fluorescent lights

More on Cell Phone and EMF Health Risks

For almost twenty years I have been writing about the risk of EMF and cell phone use to your health. This new study is of concern because we do know of the real impact of oxidation stress on the body.  Perhaps it is time to rethink your reliance on cell phones, tablets,and all microwave devices.

Cellphones cause oxidative stress, may up cancer

AVIV, Israel, Aug. 6 (UPI) -- There  is considerable oxidative stress on the tissue and glands close to a cellphone when in use and this may increase cancer risk, Israeli
researchers say.

Dr. Yaniv Hamzany of Tel Aviv University's Sackler Faculty of  Medicine and the Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Department at the  Rabin Medical Center looked for clues in the saliva of cellphone users.

Since the cellphone is placed close to the salivary gland when in use, he and fellow researchers Raphael Feinmesser, Thomas Shpitzer, Dr. Gideon Bahar and Rafi Nagler of Tel Aviv University and Dr. Moshe Gavish  of the Technion in Haifa examined the saliva content of 20 heavy-user patients, defined as speaking on their phones for a minimum of 8 hours a  month.

Most participants speak much more, Hamzany said, as much as 30-40 hours a month. Their salivary content was compared to that of a control group, which consisted of deaf patients who either do not use a cellphone or use the device exclusively for sending text messages and other non-verbal functions.

The study, published in the journal Antioxidants and Redox Signaling,  found compared to the control group, the saliva of heavy users showed indications of higher oxidative stress -- a process that damages all aspects of a human cell, including DNA -- through the development of toxic peroxide and free radicals -- a major risk factor for cancer.

Although the study didn't uncover a conclusive "cause and effect" relationship between cellular phone use and cancer, the research adds to  the building evidence cellphone use might be harmful in the long term, the researchers said.

SOURCE:  UPI http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2013/08/06/Study-Cellphones-cause-oxidative-stress-may-up-cancer-risk/UPI-40681375764470/#ixzz2bCzYApRt

Adult Leukemia and electromagnetic fields

• digg
• 

Swedish study of adult leukemia and exposure to high electromagnetic fields

A significant study to report an association between cancer and magnetic field exposure in a broad range of industries was conducted by Floderus at the Swedish National Institute of Working Life. The study included an assessment of electric and magnetic exposure at 1015 different workplaces in Sweden and involved over 1600 people in 169 different occupations.

The researchers reported an association between estimated field exposure and increased risk for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In addition, an increased risk of brain tumors was reported for men under the age of 40 whose work involved an average magnetic field exposure of more than 2 mG.

Another case-control study by Feychting in Sweden included approximately 400,000 subjects who had lived within a range of 300 meters of power transmission lines for at least one year during the period between 1960 and 1985. The researchers found that persons who were exposed to magnetic fields both at home and at workplace are nearly 4 times likely to develop leukemia compared to those who were not exposed to magnetic fields.

Denmark study

Johansen and Olsen conducted a study involving 32,006 men and women who had been employed at 99 electric utilities in Denmark. Their obtained employmenht istory goes back to 1909. Cancer incidents were attained from the cancer registry over the same period. The authors predicted that utility workers have slightly more cancer than expected from general population statistics, with no excess of leukemia, brain cancer, or breast cancer.

Source: http://altermedicine.org/adult-leukemia-and-electromagnetic-fields/

Does ever rising mobile use increase our cancer risk?

MY teenager daughter just loves her new mobile phone. 

By Rachel Borrill

It goes everywhere with her, and I literally have to prise it out of her hands at bed time. I must admit, I am also very fond of my iPhone. I can’t imagine how I survived so long without one.

“Mum, will you get off your phone,” my children will shout. And yes, because of my job and organising their social lives, it can feel like it is permanently attached to my ear. Should I worry?

Well, yes, as according to some scientists my constant use could put me at a higher risk of developing a brain tumour or some other form of cancer.

I can still remember the first mobile phone I ever used. It was Saturday, Mar 31, 1990, and I had been asked by my then newspaper, The Independent on Sunday, to cover a demonstration against the poll tax in London.

“Here take the office phone,” my editor shouted at me as I walked out the door.

It was the size of a brick, it was very heavy to carry, with a large aerial, and ran out of battery within 15 minutes. When the demonstrators began to riot, I had to file copy from a phone box.

In 1996, Neil Whitfield, a father of six from Wigan, was promoted to sales manager and was given his first mobile phone by the company. “My job required me to use it heavily and after a few months of getting the phone I had to visit my GP as I was suffering from severe headaches,” he recalls.

“The doctor advised me that they were probably caused by driving long distances for work and to take painkillers. The headaches persisted, accompanied by fatigue and memory loss. When my hearing started to deteriorate in my left ear, I went for tests.”

Unfortunately, the neurologist discovered a tumour in Whitfield’s brain, just behind his left ear, the side he held his mobile phone on.

“The specialist asked if I had ever used a mobile phone and when I said; ‘Yes,’ he replied that the mobiles might be ‘the smoking of the 21st century.” I was given five years to live without surgery so underwent a nine-hour operation,” he says. Now completely deaf in his left ear, which affects his balance, Whitfield, 56, still gets headaches and facial twitches. All, he believes, thanks to his Nokia mobile phone. “I am angry that they don’t warn the public,” he says.

So should we be worried about our mobile phone usage ? Are they killing us ? The argument has already lasted over 20 years so what is the truth?

Will we ever find out — or, if we do will it be too late ?

The most comprehensive study was complied in 2011 by the International Agency For Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organisation, after listening to over 30 experts and reviewing all the evidence and data, they decided to reclassify radiation from category 3, with “no conclusive evidence” of causing cancer, to a Group 2B a “possible human carcinogen.”

Dr Timothy Moynihan, a medical oncologist with the Mayo Clinic in Florida, believes that more research is needed to prove a link.

“It often takes many years between the use of a cancer-causing agent, like tobacco, and the observation of an increase in cancer rates. At this point, it is possible that too little time has passed to detect an increase in cancer rates directly attributable to cellphone use,” he explains.

“The bottom line? For now no one knows if cellphones are capable of causing cancer. Although long-term studies are ongoing, to date there is no convincing evidence that cellphone use increases the risk of cancer.”

But Dr Jack Philips, a neurosurgeon for over 30 years at the Beaumont hospital, Dublin, suggests if there was a link, neurologists around the world would have already seen a marked increase in the incidence of brain cancer, especially in countries like America, where the usage of mobile phones is so high.

“Yet we haven’t,” he says. “The incidence of brain tumours has not increased at all in the 30 years I have been practising, and you can quote me on that. We normally see about 80 people with malignant tumours each year.

“I would have expected to see a change. Like always there are contrary reports, some may be based upon poor research or subjective research, which are not objective. The neurologists that I have spoken to feel that the emissions from phones have not led to brain cancer.”

In 2000, Dr Philips was part of a team at Beaumont hospital investigating a link between 73 of their patients suffering from glioma (the most common type of malignant brain tumour) and which hand they held their mobile phone in.

“We believed if there was a link the patient would get the tumour on the side of the head they held their phone too. We didn’t find any side dominant, we found often they had the tumours on the opposite side that they used the phone. Most people hold the phone in their right hand and there has not been a change in the dominance in all of these years,” he explains.

Dr Philips also points out that most of the “alarming” scientific reports tend to focus on the effect of mobile phones on children.

“They argue that the immature brain will be affected by them. The neurologist and paediatricians at Beaumont hospital meet every week, and there has never been a case in 30 years of a child presenting with cancer because of the use of mobile phones. So for me it doesn’t hold water,” he says.

The Irish Cancer Society also agrees that to date the research is “inconclusive’, but suggests more needs to be done to explore the linkage.

Dr Sinead Walsh, the research manager at the ICS, says people should be aware of the “possible risk” until it can be proved otherwise.

“Many studies around the world have found no evidence of an increased risk of cancer due to mobiles, but we cannot yet be sure about the long-term effects of their use,” she explains.

“The Irish Cancer Society recommends that until more conclusive information becomes available people are advised to limit exposure to the potential harm by keeping calls short, using hand free devices or texting.”

No doubt this debate will continue for many years to come, but as for me? Well, my mobile phone is essential for work and keeping track of my children’s hectic lives. But maybe I’ll stop charging it up, next to me as I sleep. And perhaps I will listen more to my children when they shout; “Get off the phone, mum!” At least my monthly bill will be cheaper. 


© Irish Examiner Ltd. All rights reserved

Source: http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/does-ever-rising-mobile-use-increase-our-cancer-risk-234661.html

Deadly aerials?

New study in Brazil finds direct link to 4924 cancer deaths from cellular antenna radiation.

The electromagnetic radiation emitted by transmitting cell phone antennas is linked to the occurrence of some types of cancer, according to a study by Brazilian researchers.

The study established a direct link between cancer deaths in Belo Horizonte, the third largest city, with the antennae of the mobile telephone network, reported in Science Hoje site, the news portal of the Brazilian Society for Progress Science (Sociedad Brasileña para el Progreso de la Ciencia.) 

The research was conducted by scientists at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil's southeastern state whose capital is Belo Horizonte. The results give a warning in a country where, according to the latest data available, at least one person has a cell phone in 82% of the residences. Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG) Belo Horizonte - Brazil. 

Repeated exposure is not safe

According to the engineer Adilza Condessa Dode, PhD, UFMG researcher and coordinator of the study, repeated exposure of cell phone users to the electromagnetic radiation transmitted by the device and the antennas is not as safe as indicated by other research. 

According to the study, more than 80% of people who die in Belo Horizonte by specific types of cancer live less than 500m from the 300 identified cell phone antennas in the city. 

Scientists found between 1996 and 2006 died in Belo Horizonte a total of 4924 victims of cancer types that may be caused by electromagnetic radiation, such as tumours in the prostate, breast, lung, kidneys and liver. 

After finding on the map nearly 300 points antennas of cellular phone networks in the city, the researcher found that 80% of those victims lived within 500m from one of these premises. 

Radiation levels exceed maximum allowed

According to estimates quoted by the researcher, the level of local radiation in excess of 300 GHz antennas considered maximum under Brazilian law of 2009. 

"These levels are already high and dangerous to human health. In the closer you live on an antenna, the greater the contact with the electromagnetic field," said Dode. 

The researcher claims that the antennas of the devices themselves are also dangerous. 

"The power emitted by the cell phone is continuous and exacerbated by the position of the antennas that are directed toward the user's brain," he said. The engineer said that the legislation setting emission limits for electromagnetic radiation is not based upon health criteria, but solely upon industrial, economic and technological criteria. 

For the full study go to:
http://whyfry.org/brazilian-study-cancer-associated-with-radiation-from-cellular-antennas

New study finds direct link between cancer deaths and antennae

NCBI: Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations.

Source: http://www.hellkom.co.za/newsviewer/technology/787/Study-concludes-cellphone-towers-cause-cancer

Eleanor R. Adair, Microwave Proponent, Dies at 86

Edward A. Ornelas

Eleanor R. Adair, a scientist who studied microwave radiation, at a test chamber at an Air Force base in San Antonio in 2000.

Eleanor R. Adair, a scientist who spent decades exposing monkeys and eventually people (including herself) to microwave radiation to determine whether it posed serious health risks — she concluded, emphatically and somewhat controversially, that it did not — died on April 20 in Hamden, Conn. She was 86.

The cause was complications of a stroke, her daughter, Margaret Adair Quinn, said.

In the early 1970s, Dr. Adair, who had done her doctoral work in sensory psychology, was pursuing an interesting but not necessarily provocative topic: how people and animals react physiologically to external heat sources. Yet over the next three decades — after her research led her to study heat generated through microwave radiation, which is used in microwave ovens and emitted at low levels by things like cellphones and electrical transmission lines — Dr. Adair became an increasingly prominent and firm voice of assurance that microwave radiation posed no health risk.

“All the emphasis that we need more research on power line fields, cellphones, police radar — this involves billions of dollars that could be much better spent on other health problems,” Dr. Adair said in an interview with The New York Times in 2001. “Because there is really nothing there.”

For some people close to the issue, those were fighting words.

Even as numerous studies have found that microwave ovens are safe and many scientists say there is no evidence that cellphones cause cancer or other health problems, the rising use of cellphones, wireless Internet signals and some medical and military devices has continued to raise questions about their risk. Last year, a panel of the World Health Organization listed microwave radiation as “possibly carcinogenic.” In March, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it would review its standards for cellphone use for the first time since 1996.

Some scientists do not use the term microwave radiation because they are concerned it is misleading and scares people unnecessarily. Microwave radiation is far weaker than the radiation in X-rays or gamma rays.

Advocates for more research count Dr. Adair in to a camp that focuses too much on heat or thermal effects from microwaves and is too quick to dismiss other ways microwaves might affect health.

“There’s something going on, and the question is what that is and whether it’s dangerous,” said Louis Slesin, the editor of Microwave News, a Web site that is often skeptical of the role industry and the military play in influencing health standards related to the issue. “Don’t let anyone tell you they know the answer to that question.”

Although Dr. Adair said she did not receive money from cellphone makers or industries whose products released microwave radiation, she served for five years late in her career as a senior scientist at the Air Force Research Laboratory in San Antonio. The Air Force uses radar that emits microwaves.

Dr. Adair was indisputably an innovator in studying microwave radiation, work she began in the mid-1970s while a fellow at the John B. Pierce Laboratory in New Haven. First with squirrel monkeys and then with human volunteers, she placed subjects in a chamber into which she released relatively high levels of microwaves for about 45 minutes, followed by a cool-down period. She focused on what impact the heat generated by microwaves might have — and she said she never found much more than perspiration. She said the monkeys and the people mostly enjoyed the experience.

“Particularly if the environment is cool, they love it when the field comes on,” she told The Times. She said: “It is very easy to sense it and it feels good. If they are in a warm environment, and the field is strong they may start to sweat and they may feel quite uncomfortable. They always have an option of getting out of the chamber at any time, saying, ‘I’ve had enough.’ ”

Richard A. Tell, who consults for cellular companies and other industries and who served with Dr. Adair on a committee of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers that helps set standards for permissible microwave levels, said she “did the first and only studies that have ever been done so far in which humans were studied under controlled conditions.”

Eleanor Campbell Reed was born on Nov. 28, 1926, in Arlington, Mass. Her father owned a Dodge dealership near Boston and her mother worked as a fashion illustrator before she married. She graduated from Mount Holyoke College in 1948 and received her doctorate from the University of Wisconsin in 1955. In 1952 she married Robert K. Adair, who would later become a prominent physicist at Yale. Mr. Adair became involved in his wife’s work in her later years and sometimes appeared with her at conferences.

Besides her daughter, survivors include her husband; her son, Douglas; two grandchildren and four great-grandchildren.

“She would always be the first human subject in all of her experiments,” including those involving exposure to microwaves, her daughter said. “She said it was absolutely the most comfortable heat that she ever experienced. She described it once as like having the sun come out — you just suddenly feel all warm and cozy. You’re warm on the inside, not overly hot on the outside.”

Sourfce: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/science/eleanor-r-adair-microwave-safety-researcher-dies-at-86.html?_r=0