Enter forum description here ...
Robert Daniel 12 months ago in News Articles 0

By Dr. Magda Havas

I am going to post a series of educational videos that I am producing on the ground current pollution problem we are experiencing not only in Ontario but in other provinces and in other countries, like the U.S. Most people are unaware of this form of electromagnetic pollution. However, it is getting worse and needs to be dealt with. Ground current is a problem not only in some rural areas but in urban areas as well. We have considerable information about how it affects livestock, especially dairy cows. It also affects people and non-agriculture animals.

Attempts to bring in a private member’s bill in Ontario to resolve the ground current pollution problem has failed twice now, first in 2006 and again this year. I have no hope that this government is going to do anything useful about the ground current problem. Nor do I think a change in government will make any difference. Our electrical utility, that is responsible for much of this problem, is being sold to the private sector and I certainly don’t think they will spend the money to get the current out of the ground.

Animal care groups, like the OSPCA that have been informed about the problem, are choosing not to get involved. This issue has become a political hot potato that just gets tossed around with no real progress being made.

A few years ago when a dog got electrocuted during a regular dog walk, there was a great public outcry. But when an animal dies on a farm … it is quietly buried with the farmer having to bare the economic and emotional cost.

The consequence is that animals will continue to suffer and die. Some more farmers will go out of business and their children won’t inherit the family farm.

People care about animals and if they only knew how these animals suffer they would not stand by and do nothing. The problem is they don’t know. I hope these videos will create greater awareness.

The videos are meant to provide information about what is creating this ground current problem and why; the effects it has on dairy cows and other animals including people; and how the problem can be resolved.

Below are links to the videos I’ve created so far. I will continue to add to this blog as the videos come on line. Feel free to share the videos. As more people learn about this, and if the media continues to report on the problem, we may eventually alert someone in a position of authority who has the brains and the balls to do the right thing and get the current out of the ground and back onto the wires where it belongs.
PART 1: Introduction to Ground Current

Video 1-1: Ground Current Pollution:
PART 2: Biological Effects of Ground Current

Video 2-1: Ground Current Affects Cow Behaviour:

Video 2-2: Ground Current – Affects Cow Health and Productivity:
PART 3: Frederick Earth Table: A Laboratory Demonstration of Ground Current at 60 Hz and at kHz frequencies.

Video 3-1: GC Video 3: Earth Table 60 Hz –

Video 3-2: Earth Table kHz frequencies: A lab demo of ground current in the kHz frequencies – in prep
PART 4: Our Electrical Distribution System

Video #4: How our electrical system works and why it is causing ground current pollution – in prep

More videos may follow.

Thanks for watching … and feel free to share.

Original Source

Robert Daniel 12 months ago in News Articles 0

A transition to an intelligent electricity grid in Europe can take place without smart meters, industry players have said, in comments that will embarrass the European Commission, which pushed a Europe-wide plan to roll out smart meters years ago.

There are other more efficient ways than smart meters to help develop intelligent power grids, said industry delegates at the annual convention of Europe’s electricity association Eurelectric, held in Vilnius last week.

These include quicker integration of renewables, the development of energy storage and energy demand response solutions, said the industry representatives.

The actual benefits of smart meters were also questioned at the conference, as several member states have done previously. Germany, for instance, has decided not to have a national roll-out plan at all, running counter to requirements laid out in EU legislation.

80% roll-out target

EU member states are required to implement smart meters under the 2009 Third Energy Package wherever it is cost-effective to do so, with the goal to replace 80% of electricity meters with smart meters by 2020.

The 80% target applies to both households and commercial buildings, a Commission spokesperson confirmed. The EU executive will publish in the next one to two years a report on smart meters “in the context of our regular monitoring exercise of the progress of members states,” the spokesperson said.

But progress has been sluggish, with few countries having completed their roll-outs and a number of nations – most notably Germany – having so far decided against a nation-wide deployment of smart meters.

And the countries that do have a commitment to smart meters, such as the UK, have run into hurdles in completing its roll-out because some meters would cease to work if a consumer decided to change energy supplier.

Markus Merkel, a senior advisor to the management board of German distribution system operator (DSO) EWE, told the Eurelectric conference that “there isn’t a positive business case” for smart meters in Germany.

Real data vital

EWE’s move towards an intelligent grid has focused to a large extent on upgrading the system to integrate the vast amount of new renewable energy at a quicker pace.

He said smart meters would be more useful for DSOs in their work to upgrade the grid if they provided real time data on energy consumption rather than the circa 15-minute intervals that current products provide.

“We need something different, and maybe smart metering 2.0 – the next generation of smart meters – will deliver something more that we as DSOs can also use,” he said.

Laurence Carpanini, director smarter energy solutions at IBM, echoed the real time data point, adding: “I don’t look at smart meters now as being the drivers of change – you don’t need smart meters really.”

Instead, industry players should “think about flexibility solutions as a whole” and focus on a mix of demand response technologies, frequency response and energy storage, he said.

Storage was also highlighted by Ari Koponen, CEO of Finnish DSO and utility Caruna. He said that while smart meters have been “essential” for collecting energy consumption data, the aspiration should be to access this data in real time and bring in more storage solutions.

“This would [bring] the smartness of the grid to a whole different level,” Koponen said.

The industry’s comments are an embarrassment for the European Commission’s own plan to deploy smart meters across Europe by 2020.

The Commission spokesperson declined to comment on the views about whether or not smart meters are necessary for the transition to an intelligent grid.

Member states are expected to conduct their own cost-benefit analyses for their national smart meters roll-out plans, the official said.

Original Source

Robert Daniel 12 months ago in News Articles 0

As there are no perfect scientific studies, there are no perfect TV science programs. Every scientific study could be improved and every TV science program could be improved, too.

The Australian ‘Catalyst’ program tackled the very controversial science dealing with the possible health effects of wi-fi and cell phones, in a provocatively entitled “Wi-Fried?”, broadcasted on February 16, 2016 by the ABC TV.

Many of the viewers agreed with the opinions presented in the “Wi-Fried?” and many disagreed. Those who disagreed pressured the ABC TV to retract the “Wi-Fried?” and they succeeded. As of the July 5, 2016, by the decision of the Director of Television, Richard Finlayson, the program was retracted and is no longer available on the Catalyst’s website.

While I personally do not agree with several statements made in the “Wi-Fried?” program, I think the retraction of the program and suspension of the journalist, Maryanne Demasi, are too harsh actions. It appears that the ABC TV was possibly “pressured” to act and “scapegoats” were to be found and “retracted and suspended”.

The suggestion of a possible post factum “pressure” on the ABC TV to retract the “Wi-Fried?” program comes from reading the list of editorial decisions that precede any Catalyst broadcast on ABC TV. Each Catalyst’s story goes through rigorous editorial policy department, and before it is broadcasted it has a final approval from
  • the series producer,
  • the executive producer,
  • the head of factual department,
  • legal department, and then finally
  • the Head of Television.
Every single person in that process watched the “Wi-Fried?” program before it went to air and every single person determined that the program was sufficiently balanced (it does not have to be “50/50”) and sufficiently fairly represents the various range of views on the issue.

Given that this many people scrutinized the program and determined that it was sufficiently fair and balanced, it gives an indication of how many “errors and misjudgments” were made by the many layers of ABC TV management, for which “the scapegoat” pays the price.

The potential conflict of interest (CoI) might be also involved.

The regulator of the mobile phone industry in Australia is the organization ACMA (http://www.acma.gov.au) and the same ACMA is also the regulatory authority of the ABC TV network. How is that for a potential CoI?

Summa summarum, the action of the ABC TV retracting the “Wi-Fried?” program looks like a classical example of science censorship, done under pressure and tainted with CoI…

I hope that, in the interest of the open scientific debate, the Director of Television at the ABC TV, Richard Finlayson, will reconsider his decision to retract “Wi-Fried?”.

Original Source

Robert Daniel 12 months ago in News Articles 0

In a public meeting at FCC headquarters on July 14, the agency which once served the people instead acted like tyrannical thugs, in an escalating series of remarkable events.

First, they prevented wireless science advocates from displaying a simple sign, violating their First Amendment rights in a public venue. Then, a security guard forcefully prevented a t-shirt from being taken out of a bag, by a former Congressional candidate with opposing views.

Next, a Bloomberg reporter had his credentials confiscated — almost unbelievably — for merely talking with the former Congressional candidate.

Following these incidents, the reporter, Todd Shields, was visibly irate with FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler — who also happens to be the former president of CTIA, the wireless industry’s lobbying organization.

“Moments ago I was attempting to talk to to some people who came to attend the meeting and have concerns about radiation and 5G. And your security force intervened — told the guy he couldn’t show me the t-shirt he wished to display at the meeting, forced him to put it away, and confiscated my FCC-issued ID. Is this consonant with the discussion that ought to be taking place here, and what’s your reaction to this action by your staff?” -Todd Shields, Bloomberg reporter, to FCC Chair Wheeler [on video above]

And in the Q&A that followed, the former Congressional candidate Kevin Mottus successfully added another dose of truth the narrative.

“Hey Tom, with the NTP study showing wireless causes cancer sub-thermally, how can you proceed with more wireless expansion, with FCC standards only recognizing thermal effects — ignoring thousands of studies showing cancerous effects, neurological effects, reproductive harm, immune system disorders… people are being electrosensitive…” -Kevin Mottus, former Congressional candidate, to Wheeler [on video above]

After about 20 seconds of yielding the floor to Mottus, Wheeler interrupted, dodged this very appropriate question, and diverted to an FCC-compliant journalist:

“Lydia, do you have a question? (Which, on the video, almost sounds like a Wheeler Freudian slip: “Litigate. Do you have a question?”)

Why is the FCC resorting to Gestapo-like tactics of suppression and outright intimidation?

The issue here, is that the Federal Communications Commission just rubber-stamped their rollout of “5G” cellular technology, which while increasing throughput, would blanket all planetary life with ultra-high microwave frequencies — 24Ghz and up. The fact that these frequencies have never been tested as safe is not stopping corporate-government plans for an unleashing of “massive infrastructure”.

But there have been thousands of published peer-reviewed studies that indicate the proliferation of microwave (wireless) technologies is not safe to biological life. (See meta-study links here, here, here and here.)

So, because there’s a lot of money in a wireless economy and the data-harvesting that comes with it — trillions, in fact — Big Industry has bought the science, bought lawmakers, ruled the proliferation of microwaves as “safe”, and infiltrated the FCC along with most international health agencies.

And in the face of this willful, for-profit negligence, instead of employing conscience and responsibility, they’re actively silencing all opposition. You know, those of the human species that pay attention to passé concepts like science and reason.

Here’s some snippets from FCC Chair Wheeler, at his June 20 press conference:

“5G will use much higher frequency bands [24 to 100+ GHz]… antennas that can aim and amplify signals… massive deployment of small cells… tens of billions of dollars in economic activity… hundreds of billions of microchips… if something can be connected, it will be connected… unlike other countries… we won’t wait for the standards…” – Tom Wheeler, FCC Chair [on video above]

Paraphrased: “We can’t let life get in the way of profit. We want to make billions from all of you, and control everything. And in doing so, we’re not only going to willfully ignore science, we’re going to remove the idea of standards and initiate a free-for-all.”

If unchecked, what could this lead to?

The implications of all of this are very far-reaching. How far? Well, to find out, let’s start with what we know.

It’s pretty clear at this point that we have a government that has been taken over by corporate interests. In order to increase their power and control even more, they plan to exponentially ramp-up the deployment of technology everywhere, which a vast body of science clearly says is harmful.

If unchecked, this will almost certainly lead to an increase in cancer and other ailments associated with exposure to electromagnetic radiation. Haven’t we had enough of for-profit agendas putting profits before health?

From a surveillance standpoint, we already know there is a sinister spying agenda operating behind the scenes. The rollout of “5G” technology — especially in the standardless, profit-centered way Wheeler describes — would indeed open up a considerable new threat to basic rights.

If everything is connected, you can bet that as many details as possible about our actions will be tracked and stored somewhere — like the $2B NSA facility in Blufdale, Utah. And there is extraordinary market value in this. A director at NARUC stated that the value of data harvested just by “smart” utility meters will likely be worth a lot more than electricity itself, which is a $2.2 trillion market globally.

But besides being creepy and making the 1% even richer, there are clear warning signs that a control-oriented governing system could easily take an indexed catalog of all of your actions and use it against you in a multitude of ways.

For example, increasingly-instrusive “pre-crime” operations are already planned in Miami. And insurance providers are checking their customers’ facebook data to influence premiums and even coverage availability. So it’s really not unreasonable to see how a governing body concerned primarily with staying in power, could restrict rights or remove “privileges” for behavior that is deemed to be not aligned with national interests.

So, tracking is not ok unless we are absolutely convinced that the governing body of that system truly respects individual rights and has the best interests of the people in mind. And right now, we are not even close to having such leadership in our governments.

Wheeler’s vision of 5G would significantly enable those who are motivated by power and money to use technology to rule over everyone else. In order to protect our lives and future, we must not allow that to happen.

While we would all like to have fast internet, we must now look closely at the downside of this technology, and take constructive action. This can understandably be difficult, due to the considerable attachment that we have to both our devices and the sense of immediate gratification that we obtain from using them.

Original Source

Robert Daniel 1 year ago in News Articles 0

A KIDDERMINSTER man who fixes computers and phones for a living says he has been forced to close his repair business of 20 years as technology has made him ill.

Richard Kimberley, 36, is shutting csmicros on July 22 after claiming radiation signals from wireless technology has given him a rare condition known as electro-hypersensitivity (EHS).

He says he suffers from black outs, headaches and tiredness as a result of working with phones, computers and Wi-Fi signals on a regular basis since launching his business in 1996.

He said: "Due to an over-exposure to the radiation from wireless technology, my health has declined to the point where I cannot continue with the business that I have spent my life building.

"It is a complete life changer and an absolute blow that was totally unexpected.

"I’d wake up five or six times in a night, my joints were aching, I’d have headaches during the day and my memory was awful – I felt atrocious and I had no idea why.

"I’ve had to rely on staff for the past 18 months since becoming EHS. I have persevered, battling with electro-hypersensitivity for as long as I can."

Mr Kimberley says his symptoms began in 2013 when he moved into a dual shop and house premise on Stourport Road, yet found the problem improved by removing wireless technology at home.

Since October, he has lived in a van fitted with aluminium lining to block out radiation signals.

He added: "Becoming sensitive has turned my life upside down.

"Wireless technology is everywhere and the only way I can avoid it is to camp in the van every night in places I find that are safe.

"I have satellite broadband and a landline in the van, my computer is wired and people can email me or phone my landline if they want me.

"I still have technology, but now I use it safely. It’s an extremely solitary life."

Mr Kimberley now aims to make his living as a freelance web designer - working from his van - while raising awareness for EHS by writing a blog.

A 2005 report from the World Health Organisation concluded EHS symptoms "are certainly real" but ruled it "is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem".

EHS, which has caused division in the medical world, hit headlines last year when French courts awarded £580-a-month disability payments to a woman who said she was allergic to Wi-Fi.

Later that year, a Cotswolds schoolgirl took her own life after complaining she suffered from EHS.

Original Source

Robert Daniel 1 year ago in News Articles 0

We had both stepped out for some fresh air after finishing our daily morning examination. After ending my phone call I returned the cell phone into my shirt pocket. My new friend, Mr Watergate, quickly asked: “Daktari, why do you put your phone near your heart? I heard it can cause heart attack,” this coming from an intelligence officer was no surprise to me. So I ask, is there any link between a mobile phone and heart troubles? Or more broadly, Is your cellphone harming your health? Is it safe to carry a cellphone in a handy shirt pocket all the time over your heart? Can the constant or burst of energy (one watt?) when a call comes in possibly affect the heart rhythm? What if your heart is a wee bit unhealthy in the first place? We recommend that those with implanted devices such as pacemakers or defibrillators keep their cellphones and media players at least six inches from the generator.

This can be readily achieved by carrying cellphones in the pants pockets or on a belt or purse holster. Where is the worst place to keep your cell phone? Some unconfirmed reports claim that cancer may develop in locations close to where a cell phone is kept, such as breast cancer in women. Why? The location of these tumors found, exactly aligns with the position of the cell phone being worn by these young women in their bras. There is a story told of a 21-year-old woman who upon receiving her first cell phone at the age of 13, put the device in her bra and wore it there daily until she received her breast cancer diagnosis. The WHO has reviewed and compiled a substantial quantity of scientific research on the topic and announced in May 2011 that radiation from cell phones is possibly cancer causing (carcinogenic) to humans For men, it has been said that, as cell phone minutes increase, sperm count decreases. According to Journal of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, men who chat on their phone for more than four hours a day had a lower average sperm count and fewer viable sperm. Ultimately, common sense is needed in ensuring you use your cell phone in a manner that does not harm you. You should only use your cell phone when absolutely necessary, use a landline when you can. Always distance yourself from your phone - even a few centimetres between your body and your phone can diminish risks. Use hands-free devices as these emit much less radiation compared to a regular cell phone held to your ear.

Original Source

Robert Daniel 1 year ago in News Articles • updated 1 year ago 0

This Statement of Concern from flight surgeons, pilots, accident investigators and medical, scientific and technical experts was edited by Kerry Crofton, "I worked for many years with pilots and air traffic controllers in Canada and the US and served on the Canadian Civil Aviation Tribunal. The following experts are calling for a review and monitoring of WiFi in commercial aircraft; there is scientific evidence of harm at ‘low’ government-sanctioned, non-thermal levels.”

Captain N. Anderson, FAA Fast Team Representative, Aviation Human Factors Researcher

Captain Anderson is a licensed Airline Transport Pilot who has worked with the US Federal Aviation Administration Wings Program, and as a human factors seminar leader on Pilot Proficiency and Cockpit Management.

“RF frequency assaults (from WiFi-enabled aircraft and the in-flight use of wirelessly connect mobile devices) are a key issue and need to be considered in any accident/incident investigation.

With the amount of solar radiation normally received by pilots flying at high altitudes being studied as a concern for its health effects, we now have additional radiation in the form of RF signals from personal electronics and on-board Wi-fi as well as the all-electronic cockpits and more recent electronic flight bags being adopted by air crews.

Symptoms that can be traced to RF exposure, as well as time spent viewing electronic screens that can affect cognitive abilities can contribute to accidents or incidents deemed pilot error.

It is necessary for studies to be implemented by the FAA or NTSB as well as independent interests that can confirm or deny the potential effect from the widespread use of airborne electronics. I have been involved with educating the aviation community about conditions that can affect brain chemistry and cognitive breakdown.

I have been voicing concern about RF frequencies affecting pilot's abilities to make executive decisions and now am concerned about the impact frequencies emitted from wirelessly-connected electronic screens have on the biology of the brain.

Since most companies are transitioning to electronic flight bags instead of paper charts, and since most modern aircraft have all glass cockpit presentations, the pilots are being subjected to non-stop screen interference with their cognitive performance.

This can be critical when an emergency arises and a quick decision-making response is needed.

My communication with FAA personnel has resulted in a response from Kyle Copeland, Ph.D., Research Health Physicist, Radiobiology PI FAA, CAMI, AAM-630, Numerical Sciences Research Team who says ‘I can say with certainty there is no ongoing research here at CAMI that deals with biological effects of nonionizing radiation (that is WiFi and the radiation emitted by wirelessly-connected mobile devices).’ ”

Note: Radiation exposure safety standards are based only on ionizing (thermal) levels – strong enough to warm human tissue; however, all of the adverse effects detailed in this document occur at non-ionizing (non-thermal) levels. Dr Martin Blank. PhD

Robert Daniel 1 year ago in News Articles • updated 1 year ago 0

James Holderman isn't taking any chances.

The Burr Ridge resident has a sign over his electric meter informing any subcontractor in the ComEd smart meter program that he has deferred installation and to not put one of the new radio frequency, message transmitting meters on his home. He said his 18-month-old son's main play area inside the house is just feet away from where the existing meter sits on the outside of his home.

With his son's new fascination of watching from the play area's bay window as his dad cuts the grass, Holderman said he does not want his son exposed to the radio-frequency pulses a smart meter would transmit during his 30 minutes of yard maintenance.

The Burr Ridge resident said he has been investigating radio frequency and smart meters ever since ComEd made a March presentation to the Village Board about meter installation in the community.

His research was instrumental in village trustees Monday unanimously approving a resolution urging ComEd to provide residents with a way to permanently opt out of the smart meter installation program. Right now, under state law, residents not wanting a smart meter in their home can only defer having the meter until three years after the completion of the installation program, slated to end in 2019.

"Every parent should have the right to not have a smart meter in their home," Holderman said.

The village's resolution will be sent to the chief executive officer of Commonwealth Edison, the chairperson of the Illinois Commerce Commission, Gov. Bruce Rauner, House and Senate leaders of the Illinois General Assembly, and state House and Senate members representing Burr Ridge.

The village will also put information in residents' water bills.

Holderman's research and the village resolution points out that a recent study by the U.S. National Toxicology Program, a federal inter-agency group under the National Institute of Health, has found rare forms of cancer in some male rats that were exposed to radio-frequency radiation and lower birth weights in the litters of female rats exposed to RF radiation. In 2011, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer declared the kind of radiation emitted by cellphones as a "possible carcinogen."

The American Cancer Society states that because smart meters give off RF radiation as well "it is possible that smart meters could increase cancer risk. Still, it isn't clear what risk, if any, there might be from living in a home with a smart meter."

ComEd has said the meters do not pose a health risk.

"Although smart meters use radio technology, under typical circumstances a person would receive significantly less RF exposure from a smart meter than from many other electronic devices that are used daily, including cordless phones, cell pones, microwave ovens and baby monitors," the company's website states.

Trustees noted with cellphones, microwaves and other radio-frequency transmitting devices, it is a person's choice to use them. Right now, residents have no choice regarding the smart meters, they said.

Two village trustees, Diane Bolos and Paula Murphy, have already deferred installation of the smart meters for their own homes. Both trustees called a one-hour meeting earlier this month with ComEd officials, as well as Holderman and village administrator Steve Stricker, disappointing.

"ComEd couldn't be bothered," Bolos said, noting the power company officials present spent much of the meeting reading the company's written responses to the village's questions about smart meters.

The trustee said that when people call ComEd at 1-866-368-8326 they need to use the right language and stand their ground on the phone. She noted if residents say they want to "opt out" of the program, they will be told there is no opt-out option.

"You have to say 'defer',' not 'opt out,'" Bolos said, adding that it took 35 minutes for her to get the deferral done with ComEd. "I would strongly encourage everyone to defer."

Murphy said she paid $75 to have a smart meter uninstalled from her home and is paying a $25 monthly fee to have her meter read manually. She said the additional money paid to ComEd is for her "family's health."

She said the village's resolution falls under the trustees' responsibilities.

"We have to be concerned for everyone's health and well-being," Murphy said.

The question was raised as to how much impact the village's resolution will have.

Stricker noted that the village is a smaller community "in a sea of a lot of other municipalities," but said he would spread the word on regional panels with which he is involved.

"It just takes one (community) to get things started," Bolos said.

Original Source

smart meters
Robert Daniel 1 year ago in News Articles • updated 1 year ago 0


The potential adverse effect of mobile phone radiation is currently an area of great concern in the field of public health. In the present study, we aimed to investigate the effect of mobile phone radiation (900 MHz radiofrequency) during hatching on postnatal social behaviors in chicks, as well as the effect on brain size and structural maturity estimated using 3.0 T magnetic resonance imaging. At day 4 of incubation, 76 normally developing chick embryos were divided into the control group (n = 39) and the radiation group (n = 37). Eggs in the radiation group were exposed to mobile phone radiation for 10 h each day from day 4 to 19 of incubation. Behavioral tests were performed 4 days after hatching. T2-weighted MR imaging and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) were subsequently performed. The size of different brain subdivisions (telencephalon, optic lobe, brain stem, and cerebellum) and corresponding DTI parameters were measured. The Chi-square test and the student’s t test were used for statistical analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


Compared with controls, chicks in the radiation group showed significantly slower aggregation responses (14.87 ± 10.06 vs. 7.48 ± 4.31 s, respectively; P < 0.05), lower belongingness (23.71 ± 8.72 vs. 11.45 ± 6.53 s, respectively; P < 0.05), and weaker vocalization (53.23 ± 8.60 vs. 60.01 ± 10.45 dB/30 s, respectively; P < 0.05). No significant differences were found between the radiation and control group for brain size and structural maturity, except for cerebellum size, which was significantly smaller in the radiation group (28.40 ± 1.95 vs. 29.95 ± 1.41 cm2, P < 0.05). The hatching and heteroplasia rates were also calculated and no significant difference was found between the two groups.


Mobile phone radiation exposure during chick embryogenesis impaired social behaviors after hatching and possibly induced cerebellar retardation. This indicates potential adverse effects of mobile phone radiation on brain development.

Read entire study

Robert Daniel 1 year ago in News Articles 0

Gary Olhoeft, PhD, geophysicist and electrical engineer

Excerpted from An Electronic Silent Spring

I have Parkinson’s Disease. In 2009, I had a Deep Brain Stimulator (DBS) implanted in my brain. It completely replaces the pharmaceuticals I took for fifteen years, which caused increasingly unpleasant side effects. My Medtronics manual says that a cell phone must be at least 20 inches away from me with a SAR of no more than 1.8. Held near my head, the phone’s SAR can’t be more than 0.25 for 15 minutes. Otherwise, according to Medtronics, it will cause dangerous heating of my implant. If the implant gets too hot, it will malfunction, my brain could be injured, or I could die.

The Medtronic manual for my deep brain stimulator (implanted to ease effects of Parkinson’s) lists more than sixteen pages of potential electro-magnetic interferences. I have experienced interference with the operation and programming of my medical implant in elevators, on large commercial aircraft, at malls, libraries, government buildings and other places with security systems. Because interferences are almost everywhere, I built a monitor to carry around and warn me of potential hazards to avoid, including security and inventory control systems, Wi-Fi, “smart” meters, cell and radio/TV towers, wireless phones and wireless devices, buildings with faulty wiring, light dimmers, certain appliances, and many more.

If I walk through a security system–like the ones commonly found in retail stores, airports, government buildings or in the library at the university where I teach – my DBS sometimes shuts off. I have four seconds to reset it or I shake so badly that I am unable to reset it without help.

The National Institute of Health estimates that twenty-five million Americans now have implanted medical devices. Besides brain stimulators, the functioning of cardiac pacemakers, insulin pumps, cochlear implants and bone stimulators can also be disturbed by RF signals. A disabled person’s getting x-rayed while sitting in a metal wheelchair can be especially dangerous.

A friend with an insulin pump has to shut it off when he flies, because his pump interferes with the plane’s avionics, and they interfere with his pump. This limits how far he can travel. A former student told me that if she’s around several people using cell phones, her insulin pump malfunctions.

After another friend with a brain stimulator and a pacemaker had a cochlear implant installed, the signals from his implants interfered with each other. Each device functioned inappropriately, and he experienced tremendous discomfort. The surgeons who installed the devices suggested that his home’s electrical system was the source of his trouble. They did not believe that implants could interfere with each other. They can. Unfortunately, medical implants are not regulated for such interference; and my friend – who is an MD – had to prove to his physicians that they were causing him trouble.

Recently, at a meeting of people with brain stimulators for Parkinson’s, I asked if any of their implants shut off when they walk through security doors at malls and other places. Fifty people were in the room. Everyone raised a hand.

But no agency studies the effects of radiofrequency signals on medical implants. Even doctors who implant devices are likely unaware of the problems – though implant manufacturers typically alert patients to pages of dangers in their manuals.

Despite the fact that ten percent of Americans (more than twenty-five million people) have a medical implant, no agency studies their experience around wireless devices. Many of these people may find their implant malfunctioning (including shutting off) if they board an airplane, share an elevator with a mobile phone user, or step through a security door at a library or a mall. No agency studies the interference that may occur between devices when a cochlear implant is installed in a person who already has a deep brain stimulator and a pacemaker.

We need to broaden public awareness about the vulnerability of people with medical implants. We also need regulation that will limit electromagnetic emissions. We need to create limits around “second-hand” exposure to electromagnetic radiation since, for example, being in a metal-walled elevator with a person who is using a mobile phone can be especially hazardous for people with implants. At a minimum, stores and other places with security and Wi-Fi devices (now often not visible but hidden behind walls) should post warnings that a potential hazard exists for people with implanted medical devices and Radiofrequency Sickness.

Such warnings could be modeled after those the FDA began requiring of microwave oven manufacturers in the 1970s. They alerted people with cardiac pacemakers that the oven could leak radiation and create a potential hazard. The FDA still regulates microwave ovens, and most of them leak less radiation than most cell phones. All mobile phones are currently allowed to leak higher SARs than microwave ovens.

Original Source