Showing posts with label brain tumours. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brain tumours. Show all posts

Thursday, 14 May 2015

NEW Urgent Warning to All Cell Phone Users

If you think the jury's still out on whether cell phones can be dangerous to your health, then you might want to take the time to listen to this video from the Environmental Health Trust (www.ehtrust.org). Dr. Devra Davis, author of "Disconnect--The Truth About Cellphone Radiation," has been researching the safety hazards of radiation emanating from your cell phone.
Like many people, Dr. Davis just didn't believe the possibility of cell phones being dangerous―until she studied it. And now, with the toxicological and epidemiological evidence to back up her claims, she's trying to get the word out that cell phone radiation is not only dangerous, but can be downright lethal.
In her lecture, Dr. Davis explains how the biological impact of your cell phone is not related to its power, which is quite weak, but rather to the erratic nature of its signal and its ability to disrupt resonance and interfere with DNA repair. This is now believed to be the most plausible theory for understanding the wide array of health impacts discovered, which includes cancer...

Can Your Cell Phone Cause Cancer?

One interesting case that can serve as an illustrative warning of the cancer-causing potential of cell phones is that of a young woman with no other predisposing risk factors for cancer who came down with multi-focal breast cancer. The case was revealed in the May issue of the Environmental Health Trust's newsletteri.  As it turns out, the young lady had the curious habit of tucking her cell phone into her bra...
Two cancer specialists, Robert Nagourney and John West, concluded there was only one other possibility that might have directly contributed to her breast cancer. "We connected the dots," the patient said. And the dots―quite literally the pattern of the cancer, and distribution of the cancerous cells―lined up perfectly with the shape of her cell phone.
While her doctor can't prove the cell phone caused her cancer, it should serve as a potent warning not only to other women who might tuck their phones in their bras, but also to those of you who keep your phones in your pants pocket or shirt pocket as well. As a general rule, you'll want to avoid carrying your phone anywhere on your body. Keep in mind that the most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that proximity.

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

Regardless of the area exposed to the continuous radiation emitted by your cell phone, there's the potential for harm, although certain areas are clearly more vulnerable than others.
For example, research published in 2009 showed evidence that wearing a cell phone on your hip may weaken an area of your pelvisii. Using an X-ray technique used in the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with osteoporosis, researchers measured pelvic bone density in 150 men who regularly carried their cell phones attached to their belts. The men carried their phones for an average of 15 hours each day, and had used cell phones for an average of six years. The researchers found that bone mineral density was lowered on the side of the pelvis where the mobile phones were carried, raising the possibility that bone density could be adversely affected by the electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones.
It's important to realize that as long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. So wearing a cell phone on your hip for 15 hours a day is giving that area of your body nearly continuous radiation exposure.
Previous studies have found that cell phone radiation can affect men's sperm count, and the quality and motility of their sperm, and this may be a far greater issue than its effect on bone density. One such study, published in PLoS Oneiii found that:
"RF-EMR in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation. These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring."
Men in particular may want to reconsider carrying their cell phones on their belts or in their pocket, in close proximity of their reproductive organs. In addition, you have a number of other sensitive organs in that general area, including liver, kidneys, colon and bladder—all of which are susceptible to radiation.

Recent Evidence Identifies Strong Cell Phone Cancer Link

Last year, an Israeli research group reported a sharp increase in the incidence of parotid gland tumors over the last 30 years, with the steepest increase happening after 2001. Your parotid gland is a type of salivary gland, located closest to your cheek—the same area where most people typically hold their cell phones. The researchers found a four-fold increase in parotid gland cancers from 1970 to 2006, while rates of other salivary gland cancers remained stableiv.
That same year, Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, the principal investigator of a 2008 study, testified at a U.S. Senate Hearing that cell phones were identified as a contributor to salivary gland tumors. The report states that your risk of getting a parotid tumor on the same side of your head that you use for listening to the mobile phone increases by:
  • 34 percent if you are a regular cell phone user and have used a mobile phone for 5 years.
  • 58 percent if you had more than about 5,500 calls in your lifetime.
  • 49 percent if you have spoken on the phone for more than 266.3 hours during your lifetime.

World Health Organizaion Classifies Cell Phone Radiation as Class B Carcinogen

Cell phone subscriptions are now estimated at 5.9 billion globallyv—that's 87 percent of the world population! I think it's safe to say, we've already passed the point of no return when it comes to this technology. But as cell phone use continues to grow unabated, a growing body of researchers is speaking out against the technology, warning that it may have serious biological side effects that must be acknowledged and remedied.
Fortunately, their warnings are slowly but surely beginning to be heard.
On May 31, 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a report admitting cell phones might indeed cause cancer, classifying radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Class 2B)vi. The classification came in part in response to research showing wireless telephones increase the risk for brain cancer.
According to the press releasevii:
"Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."
"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the longterm, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as handsfree devices or texting."

Children are at Greatest Risk—Including While in Utero

Sadly, children and teens are at greatest risk—both for parotid gland tumors and brain tumors—as their thinner skull bones allow for greater penetration of cell phone radiation. The radiation can enter all the way into their midbrain, where tumors are more deadly. In addition, children's cells reproduce more quickly, so they're more susceptible to aggressive cell growth. Children also face a far greater lifetime exposure. According to Professor Lennart Hardell of Sweden, those who begin using cell phones heavily as teenagers have 4 to 5 times more brain cancer as young adults!
The following image, used with permission from the book Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution, clearly shows the differences in depth of penetration between adults and young children.
Pregnant women would also be wise to avoid cell phones as much as possible. In 2008, researchers analyzed data from nearly 13,000 children and found that exposure to cell phones while in the womb, and also during childhood, were linked to behavioral difficulties.viii Using handsets just two or three times a day during pregnancy was enough to raise the risk of their babies developing hyperactivity and difficulties with conduct, emotions, and relationships by the time they reached school age—and the risk became even greater if the children also used the phones themselves before the age of seven.
Overall, the study revealed that mothers who used mobile phones were 54 percent more likely to have children with behavioral problems. Later on, when the children began using cell phones themselves, they were:
  • 80 percent more likely to suffer from behavioral difficulties
  • 25 percent more at risk from emotional problems
  • 34 percent more likely to suffer from difficulties relating to their peers
  • 35 percent more likely to be hyperactive
  • 49 percent more prone to problems with conduct

Experts Adamantly Claim Harmful Effects are Now Provable

Experts in the area of the biological effects of electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and wireless technologies believe there's virtually no doubt that cell phones and related gadgets are capable of causing not only cancer but contributing to a wide variety of other conditions, from depression and diabetes to heart irregularities and impaired fertility. Researchers have now identified numerous mechanisms of harm, which explain how electromagnetic fields impact your cells and damages your DNA.
One such expert is Dr. Martin Blank, PhD, one of the most experienced researchers of the cellular and molecular effects of electromagnetic fields in the U.S. He gave an informative speech at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, "The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields," co-sponsored by ElectromagneticHealth.org. In it, he explained why your DNA, with its 'coil of coils' structure, is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds.
As described in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, April 2011ix, DNA possesses the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas: electronic conduction, and self-symmetry.
These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA to electromagnetic fields than other tissues, making the long-term consequences of repeated microwave exposures to our genetic material of great concern. Dr. Blank is adamant when he says that there IS evidence of harm, and that the harm can be significant. He also points out that the science showing harmful effects has been peer-reviewed, published, and that the results have been replicated, evaluated and "judged by scientists capable of judging it." I wrote an in-depth article about these findings back in January of last year. If you missed it, go ahead and review it now.
An analysis of the range of known mechanisms of action, including DNA effects, was published in November 2010 in "Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matterx." Furthermore, the mobile industry's own research in the 13-country Interphone studyxi showed a 40 percent increased risk of brain cancer from 1,640 or more hours of cell phone use, and independent Swedish research published in 2007 showed a 540 percent increased risk of brain cancer from greater than 2,000 hours of cell phone usexii.

My Top Tips for Cell Phone Safety

It's worth remembering that the telecommunication industry is much larger than the medical industrial complex, and they have far more influence than the drug companies. They're also mirroring many of the same tactics as the tobacco industry to peddle their wares. This includes attempting to discredit researchers who publish unfavorable cell phone studies.
As Dr. Davis shows in her lecture above, the results of any study can be accurately predicted by looking at its sponsorship. According to a review by Dr. Lai in 2008, the probability that a study will find "no effect" is two to three times higher in industry-funded studies, while independently-funded studies into the health effects of mobile technology are TWICE as likely to find a positive result.
So please, be aware that there is already robust scientific evidence that cell phones and other wireless devices pose significant health risks to all of us—especially to children and pregnant women. So while such findings are not being widely publicized as of yet, it makes sense to take action now to protect yourself and your children. You can help to minimize your exposure to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and other wireless devices by heeding the following advice:
  • Children Should Always Avoid Using Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type.
  • Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. If you're pregnant, avoiding or reducing your cell phone use may be especially important.
  • Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness. SKYPE offers a portable number via your computer that can plug into any Ethernet port while traveling.
  • Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them as often as you do. And most importantly, do not even consider having any electronic or wireless devices in the bedroom that will interfere with the quality of your sleep. If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are not safer during calls, but at least many of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made. Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won't help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers.
    Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, they may not be as damaging to your health. Another option is to just simply turn the portable phone off, only using it when you specifically need the convenience of moving about while on a call.
    Ideally it would be helpful to turn off your base station every night before you go to bed.
    You can find RF meters as well as remediation supplies at www.emfsafetystore.com. But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.
  • Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.
  • Avoid Carrying Your Phone on Your Body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility.
  • Don't Assume One Cell Phone is Safer than Another: There's no such thing as a "safe" cell phone.  This is particularly true for industry promoted SAR ratings, which are virtually useless in measuring the true potential biological danger as most all of the damage is not done by heat transfer, which SAR measures.
  • Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.
  • Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children. If you are using the Pong case, which redirects the cell phone radiation away from the head and successfully lowers the SAR effect, realize that in redirecting the radiation away from your head this may be intensifying the radiation in another direction, perhaps toward the person next to you, or, if in your pocket, increasing radiation intensity toward your body. Caution is always advised in dealing with any radiation-emitting device. We recommend cell phones be kept 'Off' except for emergencies.
  • Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded -- and most of them are not -- the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain. Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.
    The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.

Thursday, 12 February 2015

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.

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, 610).
    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 (1114).
    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 (2123). 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 (2528), 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, 3135).
  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 Exit Disclaimer. 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]

Tuesday, 17 September 2013

Adult Leukemia and electromagnetic fields

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/
electric utilities worker Adult Leukemia and electromagnetic fields

Thursday, 21 March 2013

Mobile phones and brain tumours - the terrible truth

Sweden have been doing some promising research into the relationship between mobile phones and brain tumours.  The Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden, have published a number of studies each of which show tangible evidence of the dangers of EMF radiation from mobile phones.

In one report they found “that case-control studies on adults point to an increased risk of brain tumours (glioma and acoustic neuroma) associated with the long-term use of mobile phones. Recently, the first study on mobile phone use and the risk of brain tumours in children and adolescents, CEFALO, was published. It has been claimed that this relatively small study yielded reassuring results of no increased risk. We do not agree. We consider that the data contain several indications of increased risk, despite low exposure, short latency period, and limitations in the study design, analyses and interpretation. The information certainly cannot be used as reassuring evidence against an association, for reasons that we discuss in this commentary”.


One cohort study of the association between use of mobile and cordless phones and malignant brain tumours found an increased risk was found for glioma and use of mobile or cordless phone. The risk increased with latency time and cumulative use in hours and was highest in subjects with first use before the age of 20.

Another study was made to evaluate brain tumour risk among long-term users of cellular telephones.  It found that patients using a mobile phone for ten years or more give a consistent pattern of increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma.

And finally the Department of Experimental Biomedical Sciences, Medical School of Padova, Padova, Italy made a study of the relationship between use of mobile phones (analogue and digital cellulars, and cordless) and head tumour risk (brain tumours, acoustic neuromas, and salivary gland tumours).  They found that analysis of the literature studies and of the results from meta-analyses of the significant data alone shows an almost doubling of the risk of head tumours induced by long-term mobile phone use or latency.

The 20 highest radiation producing cell phones in the United States

This is a list compiled by the technology website CNET of the 20 mobile phones producing the highest radiation in the USA as of October 2012.  A cell phone's SAR, or its Specific Absorption Rate, is a measure of the amount of radio frequency (RF) energy absorbed by the body when using the handset.  In the United States, its maximum SAR level must be 1.6 watts per kilogram. In Europe, the level is capped at 2 watts per kilogram, while Canada allows a maximum of 1.6 watts per kilogram.


Rank
Model
SAR (digital)
Carrier
1
1.58
Boost Mobile
2
1.56
Verizon Wireless
2a
1.56
Verizon Wireless
4
1.53
T-Mobile
5
1.5
Sprint Nextel
6
1.49
AT&T
7
1.48
U.S. Cellular
7a
1.48
Verizon Wireless
9
1.47
AT&T
9a
1.47
T-Mobile
11
1.45
MetroPCS
11a
1.45
Cricket Wireless
11b
1.45
Verizon Wireless
11c
1.45
Verizon Wireless
15
1.44
AT&T
16
1.42
AT&T
17
1.38
T-Mobile
17a
1.38
Verizon Wireless
19
1.34
AT&T
20
1.3
Verizon Wireless




Source: http://reviews.cnet.com/2719-6602_7-291-2.html