"HOW TO Defeat The System" Documentary Film - YouTube: ""
'via Blog this'
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Friday, June 29, 2012
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
CREDIT
SWEET! I just got 724 Facebooook Crediitss!! And it worked too! No personal info?? required ?! 100% WORKING and totally freee. Check it out, i got mine..
>> http://bit.ly/LVbzO7 <<
Friday, June 22, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Monday, June 18, 2012
The case for mandatory GMO labeling - even if you believe in limited government and the free market
The case for mandatory GMO labeling - even if you believe in limited government and the free market:
'via Blog this'
(NaturalNews) Now that the GMO labeling ballot measure has been officially accepted onto the California ballot, Monsanto is gearing up its propaganda campaign that aims to convince people you don't need to know what you're eating! Trust us, we're the food companies! We never lie, do we?
For the record, I'm an opponent of most government mandates against individuals. When the government says you have to give your children vaccine shots, that's a violation of your liberty. When Mayor Bloomberg says you can't buy a 16 oz. soda in New York, that's a violation of your liberty, too -- even though I am opposed to soda consumption in general.
When the government says you can't drink raw milk, or you can't treat cancer with medicinal herbs, or you have to get EPA approval before building a house on your own neighborhood lot, those are all examples of government mandates against individuals gone terribly wrong.
But this GMO labeling ballot measure is not a government mandate against the People. In fact, it's quite the opposite: A People-powered mandate against the corporations.
For the record, I've actually lived in a country where food ingredients were not required to be listed on labels. It was a nightmare trying to avoid MSG because food companies consistently and tirelessly seek to deceive consumers about what they put into foods. Without labeling laws, we would all soon be eating melamine, human fetal cells, and mystery chemicals of dubious origin (even beyond what we're already eating).
If the GMO labeling issue were up to the government of California, there would be no ballot measure whatsoever. The biotech industry rules over corrupt government bureaucrats and politicians because it can always buy sufficient influence to kill any legislative initiative. Such is the reasoning behind a people-powered ballot measure: It is the one lawmaking mechanism still available to the People who can bypass corruption and go straight to the voters. Of course, even if passed, the ballot measure is subject to state Supreme Court interpretation, and that's an important measure to make sure the masses of any state don't enact a law that would deprive other people of their constitutional rights and liberties.
But GMO labeling is a threat to no one other than the deceptively-operated biotech industry itself. GMO labeling is an effort to force corporations to simply tell the truth on food labels so that moms, dads, children and everybody else can know what they're buying and eating.
Consumers therefore don't know what they're buying, and thus you don't have a free market... you have a contrived market where products are deceptively labeled to make sure that consumers do not have access to accurate information about what they're buying.
Think about it: the successful selling of GMOs depends entirely on consumers not knowing they are buying them. Nearly every other product is sold because people actually want it: People buy vitamin C because they want vitamin C. They buy whole wheat bread because they want whole wheat. But they only buy GMOs because they are not aware they are buying GMOs.
Genetically engineered food ingredients, in other words, are purchased entirely by accident by nearly everyone who buys them. That's not a free market. That's not transparency. That's deception. It is what destroys consumer confidence in the free market, thereby harming the efficiencies of the market itself. How many corn-based food products, for example, are entirely avoided by informed consumers today merely because they suspect those products might contain GMOs even if they don't?
But when it comes to food labeling, Monsanto speaks with a forked tongue to the FDA." GMOs are no different," they claim. "Therefore, there's no need to list them on food labels."
How can GMOs be different, and yet be not different at the same time? How can Monsanto apply for patents on GM seeds by claiming they are "unique" and then claim there's no need to regulate them because they are "equivalent" to other seeds? It's a bald-faced contradiction, as anyone can readily tell.
It's easier to just call it a lie... a convenient lie that sells more food containing genetically modified ingredients. Because, again, the only reason most consumers even purchase foods contain GM ingredients is because they are completely unaware of what they're really buying.
Monsanto would love to keep it this way. Its entire business model depends on a lack of transparency. Withholding information from consumers is central to its business model. Telling the truth on food labels would destroy its business revenues because consumers would then be operating with reliable information, making free market choices based on accurate information.
But Monsanto, you see, is the enemy of a free market. Just like the Rockefellers, the JP Morgans, Goldman Sachs... you name it. Powerful corporate interests that collude with government almost always do so as a way to somehow cheat or betray consumers. The last thing they want is to be forced to actually tell the truth about what they're selling (and what you're buying).
By the same token, we should just as much wish to audit our food and find out what's in it. After all, we eat this stuff. It impacts our health and lives in a profound way. Food labels are like little food audit reports: At a glance, we can know the ingredients and nutrition facts. With the help of GMO labeling, we will also be able to tell if ingredients are genetically engineered.
Everyone who believes in transparency from government and corporations by definition must also agree with mandatory GMO labeling. It's about telling the truth so that consumers can make an informed choice in a free market economy.
You've got to wonder: What business is so ashamed of its products that it doesn't even want its technology identified on product labels? The answer, of course, is the biotech industry.
Again, Monsanto's business model depends on consumers NOT having access to accurate information about what they're buying. Market success means withholding information from customers. Gotcha, sucka!
What's beautiful about the GMO labeling ballot measure is that people from all walks of life strongly support it: Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and almost everybody else. People overwhelmingly agree -- over 90% in the polls I've seen -- with the simple principle that we have the right to know what we're buying and eating.It's not a complicated issue. It's a fundamental principle of consumer choice and free market efficiency.
This is why I will personally continue to strongly advocate support for this GMO labeling initiative, regardless of what the biotech industry might do to try to obfuscate the issue in the minds of voters. That effort will be significant, no doubt. Everything is on the line for this industry which is terrified of having to tell the truth. When full transparency would cause an entire industry to lose 90 percent of its customers, you have to scratch your head and wonder what they're selling people in the first place.
The California GMO ballot measure -- a grassroots measure put on the ballot by the People in the face of fierce corporate resistance -- would force the biotech industry to simply tell the truth. It is the ultimate expression of the People demanding fundamental transparency from an industry so powerful that it has successfully threatened states (http://www.naturalnews.com/035628_Monsanto_Vermont_GMO_labeling.html) and even entire nations (http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_GMOs_Wikileaks.html) with economic sanctions.
Passage of this GMO labeling initiative will be a victory for transparency, a victory for the free market, and a victory for the People. It is time that We the People demanded full transparency from the companies that produce the food we feed ourselves and our children.
NaturalNews thanks all those who support this honest labeling effort. With your support, we can make history together and end the scourge of GMOs in America -- even in the face of powerful corporations and governments which would greatly prefer we all stay uninformed.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036209_GMO_labeling_ballot_measure_California.html#ixzz1y9fhblq6
'via Blog this'
(NaturalNews) Now that the GMO labeling ballot measure has been officially accepted onto the California ballot, Monsanto is gearing up its propaganda campaign that aims to convince people you don't need to know what you're eating! Trust us, we're the food companies! We never lie, do we?
For the record, I'm an opponent of most government mandates against individuals. When the government says you have to give your children vaccine shots, that's a violation of your liberty. When Mayor Bloomberg says you can't buy a 16 oz. soda in New York, that's a violation of your liberty, too -- even though I am opposed to soda consumption in general.
When the government says you can't drink raw milk, or you can't treat cancer with medicinal herbs, or you have to get EPA approval before building a house on your own neighborhood lot, those are all examples of government mandates against individuals gone terribly wrong.
But this GMO labeling ballot measure is not a government mandate against the People. In fact, it's quite the opposite: A People-powered mandate against the corporations.
Forcing corporations to tell the truth
It is the People of California, after all, who developed this GMO labeling ballot measure, gathered the signatures, and put it on the ballot. And the point of it is solely to keep corporations honest about what they put in our food. It is, technically, merely an extension of existing food ingredient labeling laws, and I can't think of a single person who would argue that food companies shouldn't even be required to list food ingredients.For the record, I've actually lived in a country where food ingredients were not required to be listed on labels. It was a nightmare trying to avoid MSG because food companies consistently and tirelessly seek to deceive consumers about what they put into foods. Without labeling laws, we would all soon be eating melamine, human fetal cells, and mystery chemicals of dubious origin (even beyond what we're already eating).
If the GMO labeling issue were up to the government of California, there would be no ballot measure whatsoever. The biotech industry rules over corrupt government bureaucrats and politicians because it can always buy sufficient influence to kill any legislative initiative. Such is the reasoning behind a people-powered ballot measure: It is the one lawmaking mechanism still available to the People who can bypass corruption and go straight to the voters. Of course, even if passed, the ballot measure is subject to state Supreme Court interpretation, and that's an important measure to make sure the masses of any state don't enact a law that would deprive other people of their constitutional rights and liberties.
But GMO labeling is a threat to no one other than the deceptively-operated biotech industry itself. GMO labeling is an effort to force corporations to simply tell the truth on food labels so that moms, dads, children and everybody else can know what they're buying and eating.
The proper use of regulatory power
The People forcing their state government to mandate honest food labels is one of the few legitimate applications of government regulatory power. This is true even if you believe, as I do, that government is too big, too oppressive, too arrogant and way too expensive. Today in America, we suffer from bloated government that has become a serious threat to the liberty of the People. Yet to take that argument and use it to say that GMO labeling mandates are an encroachment of liberties is a logic error: this mandate is directed solely at corporations with a proven track record of deceiving the People. In no way is GMO labeling encroaching upon individual rights or liberties. If anything, it actually empowers individuals with accurate information about their free market choices of what they're buying.The free market requires accurate information about products
One of the most fundamental concepts of the free market is that both producers and consumers benefit from access to accurate information about what they are buying or selling. This is fundamental to the efficiency of any free market. But biotech companies selling GMOs want the market to be a one-way mirror -- they know what's in the food but you don't!Consumers therefore don't know what they're buying, and thus you don't have a free market... you have a contrived market where products are deceptively labeled to make sure that consumers do not have access to accurate information about what they're buying.
Think about it: the successful selling of GMOs depends entirely on consumers not knowing they are buying them. Nearly every other product is sold because people actually want it: People buy vitamin C because they want vitamin C. They buy whole wheat bread because they want whole wheat. But they only buy GMOs because they are not aware they are buying GMOs.
Genetically engineered food ingredients, in other words, are purchased entirely by accident by nearly everyone who buys them. That's not a free market. That's not transparency. That's deception. It is what destroys consumer confidence in the free market, thereby harming the efficiencies of the market itself. How many corn-based food products, for example, are entirely avoided by informed consumers today merely because they suspect those products might contain GMOs even if they don't?
If GMOs are so good, why don't the food companies want them listed on food labels?
The other big question in all this concerns the GMO "feature" of foods. Genetically modified seeds, you see, are sold to farmers with all sorts of features. "These seeds are different," companies like Monsanto promise farmers. "They will increase your crop yields and make you more money."But when it comes to food labeling, Monsanto speaks with a forked tongue to the FDA." GMOs are no different," they claim. "Therefore, there's no need to list them on food labels."
How can GMOs be different, and yet be not different at the same time? How can Monsanto apply for patents on GM seeds by claiming they are "unique" and then claim there's no need to regulate them because they are "equivalent" to other seeds? It's a bald-faced contradiction, as anyone can readily tell.
It's easier to just call it a lie... a convenient lie that sells more food containing genetically modified ingredients. Because, again, the only reason most consumers even purchase foods contain GM ingredients is because they are completely unaware of what they're really buying.
Monsanto would love to keep it this way. Its entire business model depends on a lack of transparency. Withholding information from consumers is central to its business model. Telling the truth on food labels would destroy its business revenues because consumers would then be operating with reliable information, making free market choices based on accurate information.
But Monsanto, you see, is the enemy of a free market. Just like the Rockefellers, the JP Morgans, Goldman Sachs... you name it. Powerful corporate interests that collude with government almost always do so as a way to somehow cheat or betray consumers. The last thing they want is to be forced to actually tell the truth about what they're selling (and what you're buying).
Want to audit the Fed? You'll want to audit your FOOD even more...
Why do lovers of liberty wish to audit the Federal Reserve? Because we demand transparency. We all deserve to know what's being done with our money, right?By the same token, we should just as much wish to audit our food and find out what's in it. After all, we eat this stuff. It impacts our health and lives in a profound way. Food labels are like little food audit reports: At a glance, we can know the ingredients and nutrition facts. With the help of GMO labeling, we will also be able to tell if ingredients are genetically engineered.
Everyone who believes in transparency from government and corporations by definition must also agree with mandatory GMO labeling. It's about telling the truth so that consumers can make an informed choice in a free market economy.
You've got to wonder: What business is so ashamed of its products that it doesn't even want its technology identified on product labels? The answer, of course, is the biotech industry.
To oppose GMO labeling is to side with Monsanto
The final point here is that to oppose GMO labeling -- full transparency so that consumers to know what they're buying -- is to play right into the hands of Monsanto itself. This corporation, in fact, will likely spent tens of millions of dollars attempting to defeat the California ballot initiative in the hopes that foods containing GMOs can continue to be deceptively sold to consumers who have no idea what they're actually buying.Again, Monsanto's business model depends on consumers NOT having access to accurate information about what they're buying. Market success means withholding information from customers. Gotcha, sucka!
What's beautiful about the GMO labeling ballot measure is that people from all walks of life strongly support it: Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and almost everybody else. People overwhelmingly agree -- over 90% in the polls I've seen -- with the simple principle that we have the right to know what we're buying and eating.It's not a complicated issue. It's a fundamental principle of consumer choice and free market efficiency.
This is why I will personally continue to strongly advocate support for this GMO labeling initiative, regardless of what the biotech industry might do to try to obfuscate the issue in the minds of voters. That effort will be significant, no doubt. Everything is on the line for this industry which is terrified of having to tell the truth. When full transparency would cause an entire industry to lose 90 percent of its customers, you have to scratch your head and wonder what they're selling people in the first place.
The California GMO ballot measure -- a grassroots measure put on the ballot by the People in the face of fierce corporate resistance -- would force the biotech industry to simply tell the truth. It is the ultimate expression of the People demanding fundamental transparency from an industry so powerful that it has successfully threatened states (http://www.naturalnews.com/035628_Monsanto_Vermont_GMO_labeling.html) and even entire nations (http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_GMOs_Wikileaks.html) with economic sanctions.
Passage of this GMO labeling initiative will be a victory for transparency, a victory for the free market, and a victory for the People. It is time that We the People demanded full transparency from the companies that produce the food we feed ourselves and our children.
NaturalNews thanks all those who support this honest labeling effort. With your support, we can make history together and end the scourge of GMOs in America -- even in the face of powerful corporations and governments which would greatly prefer we all stay uninformed.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036209_GMO_labeling_ballot_measure_California.html#ixzz1y9fhblq6
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Cell Phone Dangers | Dr. Devra Davis @ National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) - YouTube
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
Cell Phone Dangers | Dr. Devra Davis @ National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) -
YouTube: ""
'via Blog this'
Interphone Study Design Flaws
10 Eye-Opening Design Flaws That Underestimate Brain Tumor Risk
- Interphone Studies Presentation Download Power Point
The Interphone Study is a 13-country investigation examining if cell phone use causes tumors. It is substantially funded by the cell phone industry: €3.2 million ($5.1M) in Europe, $1 million in Canada and unknown amounts in Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
There have been 14 Interphone brain tumor studies published to date. The overwhelming number of statistically significant findings have shown that use of a cell phone protects the user from a brain tumor. Such a result stretches credulity.
There are only two possible explanations: 1) use of a cell phone does protect the user from risk of a brain tumor, or 2) the study design is highly flawed. Asking the question, “What would the study findings be like if there was no risk of brain tumors from cell phone use?” allowed an analytic approach. Think about testing a coin to see if there is a “risk” towards heads or tails. Flipping the coin many times, the expectation, if there is no “risk” of heads or tails is that roughly the same number of heads and tails would be found. Say a coin was tossed 20 times and tails came up 19 times, intuitively you can say the coin has a “risk” of coming up tails (or inversely the coin is protected from coming up heads). Mathematically the odds that this would occur by chance would be one time in 49,932 for every 20-time coin flipping. This is the method used to analysis the Interphone Study. If there is no risk we would expect approximately the same number of increased brain tumor risk findings as decreased risk (protection) findings. The analysis concluded, however, that it is virtually certain that the Interphone Study shows that use of a cell phone protects the user from a brain tumor, or the Interphone Study is flawed.
A close examination of 10 Interphone Study Protocols found 10 design flaws, 9 of which independently result in an underestimation of the risk of brain tumors. This analysis, conducted by L. Lloyd Morgan, BS, was presented in June 2008 to the Bioelectromagnetics Society (see Power Point slides attached). The flaws range from selection bias, where controls who agree to participate are more frequent cell phone users than non-participating controls; considering tumorsoutside of the radiation plume as ‘exposed’; cell phone use (latency) time too short to expect a tumor diagnosis; defining ‘regular user’ as persons who use a phone at least 1x a week for six months or more, an unrealistic definition of a ‘regular’ user; excluding young adults and children (known to be at the greatest risk from exposure to carcinogens); only considering a few brain tumor types, not others; and excluding brain tumor cases because of death.
The result of these design flaws is that the Interphone studies published to date find use of a cell phone protects the users from brain tumors. According to Lloyd Morgan, BS, the cell phoneindustry-funded 13-country Interphone study thus “is not the definitive study it purports to be”, as the design flaws have distorted results beyond reason. The only independent cell phone study, a Swedish team led by Dr. Lennart Hardell, has found a consistent risk of brain tumors from cell phone use. “It would appear the Interphone Protocol assures that no risk could be found,” says Morgan.
Journalists wanting more information about the Interphone study design flaws can contact Lloyd Morgan, BS at Bilovsky@aol.com.
High Frequency Transients on Electrical Wiring
A Potential Universal Carcinogen
Pervasive Form of Electromagnetic Pollution Linked to Teachers’ Cancer in Southern California School
In 2003 the teachers at La Quinta, California middle school complained that they had more cancers than would be expected. A consultant for the school district denied that there was a problem. A retrospective study of cancer incidence in the teachers’ cohort in relationship to the school’s electrical environment showed that sixteen school teachers in a cohort of 137 teachers hired in 1988 through 2005 were diagnosed with 18 cancers. The observed to expected (O/E) risk ratio for all cancers was 2.78. Malignant melanoma, thyroid cancer and uterine cancer had increased incidence. Sixty Hertz magnetic fields showed no association with cancer incidence. A new exposure metric, high frequency voltage transients, did show a positive correlation to cancer incidence. A cohort cancer incidence analysis of the teacher population showed a positive trend of increasing cancer risk with increasing cumulative exposure to high frequency voltage transients on the classroom’s electrical wiring measured with a Graham/Stetzer (G/S) meter. These transients can occur anywhere that electric current flows, can cause a number of different cancers, and are increasing in our environment with increasing use of electrical devices which interrupt current flow like compact fluorescent lights, halogen lights and electrical transformers. Those places that have broadband internet transmitted over power lines are also introducing high frequency transients into homes and offices.
This study suggests that to understand the role of the environment in the incidence of cancer we must evaluate the role of high frequency transients being carried on electrical wiring, and appreciate that the high EMF environments in which we are increasingly located may be an as yet undiscovered very important causative factor.
Journalists wishing to pursue this story lead, please read “A New Electromagnetic Exposure Metric: High Frequency Voltage Transients Associated With Increased Cancer Incidence in Teachers in a California School” published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine (2008) and then contact Samuel Milham, MD, MPH at smilham@dc.rr.com for further detail.
Autism may be Linked to Electromagnetic Radiation Levels In Mother’s Bedroom During Pregnancy
Pilot Study Finds Over 20x Higher Microwave Power Density Levels in Mothers’ Sleeping Locations During Pregnancy
Incidence of autistic babies has increased from 1 in 150 in 2002 to an estimated 1 in 50 babies today. Dr. Dietrich Klinghart, MD, PhD of the Institute of Neurobiology in Seattle recently conducted a pilot study to assess the potential role of electromagnetic frequencies in the dramatic rise in autism and other neurological impairments over the past decade. Various measurements of electromagnetic radiation exposure were assessed in the case of 10 children with neurological impairment, 8 categorized with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Data was obtained for:
1) Mothers’ Body Voltage in the mothers’ sleeping location during pregnancy;
2) Child’s Body Voltage in current sleeping location;
3) Microwave Power Density in mothers’ sleeping location during pregnancy(microwatt/square meter); and
4) Child’s Microwave Exposure in current sleeping location.
Data for mothers with neurologically impaired children were contrasted with similar data for 5 healthy children and their mothers.
The results were as follows:
Body Voltage Levels:
Median Body Voltage Level in Mom’s Bed During Pregnancy*
Value Range
Neurologically Impaired Children 1,872 milliVolts (380-6,040)
Healthy Group 224 milliVolts (12-480)
8.4x Higher Body Voltage Levels in Mom’s with
Neurologically Impaired Children
*Note research shoes whatever the Body Voltage of the Mom, it is even higher in the fetus.
Body Voltage of Child in Current Bed Location
Value Range
Neurologically Impaired Children 1,028 milliVolts (420-4,900)
Healthy Group 120 milliVolts (0-230)
8.5x Higher Body Voltage in Neurologically Impaired
Child’s Sleeping Location
Microwave Exposure:
Microwave Power Density in Sleeping Location
Neurologically Impaired Children-Mom’s Bed mw/sq. meter Range
Exposure In Pregnancy 290 (110-1,710)
Healthy Group 14 (0-67)
20.7x Higher Microwave Power Density in Mom’s Sleeping
Location In Cases Where Children Were Neurologically Impaired
This pilot data strongly suggests that electromagnetic radiation in the sleeping environment of mothers during pregnancy, as well as electromagnetic radiation in the sleeping environment of children, may be key undiscovered contributing if not causative factors in neurological impairments in children, including autism. Given increasing levels of ambient electromagnetic radiation in modern environments from society’s use of electronic equipment, wireless technologies, such as cell phones and wireless networks, high frequency transients on electric lines, and broadband over power lines (BPL), this association needs immediate further exploration.
Journalists wanting to pursue this story lead can review Dr. Klinghart’s slides from the Crayhorn medical conference in July 2008 (KlinghardtCrayhonBoulderfest08.pdf) and then contact him via his assistant at info@klinghardtneurobiology.com.
Philanthropists interested in funding further studies on the connection between autism and other neurological impairments in children, and electromagnetic fields, please contact us HYPERLINK “mailto:info@electromagnetichealth.org” info@electromagnetichealth.org to make arrangements to support worthy research.
Ambient Microwave Radiation From Wireless Technologies Linked to Higher Residential Electricity Cost
High Frequencies from Neighborhood Cell Phone Antennas Found to Speed Up Utility Meters, Increasing Bills
Might you be paying for electricity you did not use? A couple in upstate New York noticed their electricity bill had almost doubled, even though the rates had not increased and their utility usage had not changed. The utility company said they could not explain what had happened. The couple was aware a cell phone tower had been erected near their home and every time they added new antennas, their electricity bill increased.
This couple contacted Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University in Canada, who investigated their situation. Dr. Havas reviewed four years of the couple’s utility bills and discovered the utility bills had increased dramatically when the antennas went online. She measured high levels of microwave radiation in the home as well as dirty electricity, or high frequency transients, on the electrical wiring.
When RF chokes were placed near the hour-watt meter the cost of monthly bills decreased substantially… almost to pre-tower levels. After installing a $10 choke, this couple saved almost $1000 annually on electricity.
The explanation is simple. Mechanical hour-watt meters can give inaccurate readings if frequencies higher than 60 Hz (cycles per second) are present on the wiring. The utilities know this and they have technology to keep the electrical power operating at a pure 60 Hz. However, when higher frequencies are loaded onto the line, these frequencies make the hour-watt meters spin faster, giving the appearance that more electricity is being consumed. These false readings are costing American families hundreds to thousands of dollars each year.
If your electricity bills are increasing without any obvious explanation and if you go on vacation and are using minimal power but your electricity bill is still high you may want to investigate this situation. You may be paying for power you are not consuming.
This case study suggests that further analysis of electrical utility bills pre- and post-erection of a cell phone tower is warranted in cases where utility bills in homes and offices have increased without explanation.
Credentialed journalists interested in pursuing a story on the impact of ambient RF on utility meter readings may contact Dr. Magda Havas at HYPERLINK “mailto:mhavas@trentu.ca”mhavas@trentu.ca.
EPA’s Efforts to Issue Exposure Guidelines for Radiofrequency Radiation Suppressed for Years
Guidelines May Have Made Cell Phones Illegal
Like Sisyphys eternally pushing the rock uphill, the Environmental Protection Agency tried to birth human exposure guidelines for radio frequency radiation for 17 years.
First there was opposition from other federal agencies. The FDA didn’t want the exposure limits to apply to microwave ovens or VDTs. A number of agencies didn’t want them to apply to occupational exposures. The FAA didn’t want to have to protect the public from air traffic control and weather radars. The DoD didn’t want military radars to be affected. In 1987, EPA terminated its microwave health effects research program, and in 1988 suspended the development of its exposure guidelines for a third time.
But Senator Joseph Lieberman convened Congressional hearings in 1992, inquiring into an epidemic of testicular cancer in policemen who used traffic radar guns. These hearings resulted in renewed pressure put on EPA by various members of Congress to resume its work. Finally in June 1995 E. Ramona Trovato, Director of the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, announced that the guidelines were substantially complete and would be issued ”in early 1996.”
This time EPA’s efforts were on a collision course with plans for ubiquitous cell phone service. For the new guidelines stated explicitly that they protected only against shocks and burns and the effects of RF heating and did “not apply to chronic, nonthermal exposure situations.” EPA further announced that it was ready to proceed to Phase 2 of its regulatory process, which would address chronic exposure and non-thermal effects and take an additional two years. Cell phones would have been illegal, but for one circumstance: EPA’s exposure guidelines have never seen the light of day.
For further information on the history of the EPAs attempts to issue exposure guidelines, journalists may contact Arthur Firstenberg, President of the Cellular Phone Task Force atbearstar@fastmail.fm.
Compact Fluorescent Bulbs Promoted for Energy Efficiency Emit Hazardous Radiofrequency Radiation
Energy Efficient LED Bulbs a Better Health Choice
At the request of the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIRH), Canadian Professor Magda Havas, PhD submitted a report in June 2008 called “Health Concerns Associated With Energy Efficient Lighting and Their Electromagnetic Emissions”. Dr. Havas, Associate Professor of Environment and Resource Studies at Trent University in Ontario, Canada, concludes, “The energy efficient compact fluorescent lights that are commercially available generate radio frequency radiation and ultraviolet radiation, they contain mercury-a known neurotoxin, and they are making some people ill. Instead of promoting these light bulbs governments around the world should be insisting that manufacturers produce light bulbs that are electromagnetically clean and contain no toxic chemicals…With a growing number of people developing electrohypersensitivity we have a serious emerging and newly identified health risk that is likely to get worse until regulations restricting our exposure to electromagnetic pollutants are enforced. Since everyone uses light bulbs and incandescent bulbs are being phased out this is an area that requires immediate attention.”
Journalists wishing to pursue this story in advance of the phase out of incandescent bulbs can contact Dr. Magda Havas at mhavas@trentu.ca.
Pregnant Women Who Use Cell Phone 2-3x Day Associated With Increased Behavioral Problems in Offspring.
In a study of over 13,000 children, incidence of emotional symptoms, behavioral problems, inattention, hyperactivity and problems with peers increased by 54% with mothers use of cell phones, and by 80% when the children, at the age of seven, used cell phones themselves.
In May 2008, the UCLA School of Public Health announced a first of its kind study that found a possible link between cell phone exposure and behavioral problems in young children, urging additional research. In research conducted with University of Aarhus, Institute of Public Health in Denmark, they found “Children who were exposed to cell phones before and/or after birth tended to have higher prevalence of emotional symptoms, behavioral problems, inattention, hyperactivity and problems with peers. When looking at the combined use of cell phones during pregnancy and in childhood, children were 80 percent more likely to have behavioral problems compared to children who do not use a cell phone and whose mothers did not use cell phones during pregnancy. When looking at cell phone use during pregnancy alone and not during childhood, children were 54 percent more likely to have behavioral problems. ”
For further information see http://www.ph.ucla.edu/pr/newsitem052108.html
Wi-Max to Blanket America in Microwave Radiation
Millions of Sensitive People May Have Difficulty
In May 2008 USA Today reported Sprint and Clearwire plan to “blanket the USA with Wi-Max, turning the nation into one big hotspot.” Google, Intel, Comcast and Time Warner Cable are reported to be large investors. “The Wi-Max network is expected to reach about half the U.S. population by the end of 2010″, said the report.
While putting high-powered Wi-Max antennas in residential and commercial neighborhoods may be good for consumers in terms of internet speed and access, there is serious and growing concern among scientists about the effects of this 24/7 exposure to microwave radiation. The BioInitiative Report (www.BioInitiative.org), a large review of over 2,000 studies on the known biological effects of electromagnetic radiation shows impacts from RF on the immune function, the neurological system, inflammation, stress proteins, behavioral functioning, etc., at levels of exposure way lower that current FCC exposure guidelines for industry. Based on the existing body of science on the effects of RF radiation, grave concern is thus being now raised by scientists about the planned chronic exposure in the U.S. to these frequencies.
An estimated 10 million people in the U.S., or 3% of the population is already estimated to be electrically sensitive to a degree which significantly impairs their ability to function productively in society, including in the workplace. An additional 100mm people, or 35% of the population, are estimated to be moderately electrically sensitive. These numbers are projected to increase dramatically with ubiquitous exposure to 24/7 high-powered Wi-Max. For the many people who are already electrically sensitive there will be nowhere to avoid the very often debilitating symptoms that occur for them in wi-fi environments.
Please read the attached letter from Dr. Olle Johannson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden in response to an article by The Economist on electrical hypersensitivity for background on what is happening to people in the Scandinavian countries. Electrosensitivity Letter.
As we learned with cell phones on which there was no pre-market health testing required by government, citizens and the media must question the wisdom of new technologies such as Wi-Max before they are launched widely into society, and not assume our government has evaluated them thoroughly.
Questions the media might be asking about Wi-Max on behalf of citizens of the United States include:
What pre-market health testing has been done on Wi-Max?
What environmental studies have been done on the effects of microwave radiation on animals, such as birds, bee colonies, insects, domestic animals, as well as on nature such as trees? What is government expecting the effects of nationwide Wi-Max to be on nature?
Have members of Congress read the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org), including a review of the science on the known biological effects of radiofrequency radiation?
Does Congress understand the science on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on the brain? Do they realize microwave radiation impacts fertility and DNA, and effects fetuses, children and teenagers, including potentially leading to significantly increased emotional problems in children whose mothers were exposed to microwave radiation by using cell phones in pregnancy?
Do they understand the potential connection with the illnesses of our times and their costs? Or with productivity and learning?
Do they understand insomnia is one of the firstsymptoms of electrical sensitivity -and that today 65% of Americans already have a sleep disorder? What is expected to happen with sleep disorders in 24/7 Wi-Max exposure?
Have they heard that the National Library of France has recently dismantled wireless, exercising the precautionary principle because of the health concerns? Or that Paris’ library system also dismantled wireless after 40% of their staff became ill? Or that the union chief of a 38,000 teachers union in the U.K. is advocating wi-fi be removed from schools, and that an entire Canadian university has dismantled it?
Have they heard that some other countries are advising no wi-fi in residential neighborhoods?
Have they heard that the European Parliament just recently voted 522 to 16 to exercise greater precaution regarding electromagnetic radiation, calling exposure guidelines ‘obsolete’?
Have they estimated what the effects of this constant, invisible electropolluting background stressor will do to interpersonal relations and the mental health of people of all ages-infants, children, adolescents, adults and the elderly?
Have they contemplated the effects of an increased level of microwave exposure on car accidents? On crime? On demand for social services?
Do they understand that independent scientists believe there is evidence linking microwave radiation to genetic effects, cancer, cellular/molecular effects, electrophysiology changes, behavioral changes, nervous system impairment, blood-brain barrier permeability, calcium efflux, cardiovascular changes, hormonal disruption, immune system changes, metabolic changes, fertility impairment and much more?
Do they realize nationwide roll out of 24/7 Wi-Max may result in social unrest because many will not be able to tolerate it, or that people will be highly disturbed realizing their health challenges may be related?
Is the government planning to create refugee communities for electrically sensitive people who can’t cope in high Wi-Fi Environments?
For journalists wanting more information on the science showing biological effects from ELF and RF radiation, please see the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) or contact info@bioinitiative.org
Dirty Electricity Elevates Blood Sugar Among Electrically Sensitive Diabetics
May Explain Brittle Diabetes
Electromagnetic Biology & Medicine
ABSTRACT
Dr. Magda Havas, B.Sc., Ph.D.
Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada, K9J 7B8, mhavas@trentu.ca
ABSTRACT
Dr. Magda Havas, B.Sc., Ph.D.
Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada, K9J 7B8, mhavas@trentu.ca
Transient electromagnetic fields (dirty electricity), in the kilohertz range on electrical wiring, may be contributing to elevated blood sugar levels among diabetics and pre-diabetics. By closely following plasma glucose levels, in four type 1 and type 2 diabetics, we find that they responded directly to the amount of dirty electricity in their environment. In an electromagnetically clean environment, type 1 diabetics require less insulin and type 2 diabetics have lower levels of plasma glucose. Dirty electricity, generated by electronic equipment and wireless devices, is ubiquitous in the environment. Exercise on a treadmill, which produces dirty electricity, increases plasma glucose. These findings may explain why brittle diabetics have difficulty regulating blood sugar. Based on estimates of people who suffer from symptoms of electrical hypersensitivity (3% to 35%), as many as 5 to 60 million diabetics worldwide may be affected. Exposure to electromagnetic pollution in its various forms may account for higher plasma glucose levels and may contribute to the misdiagnosis of diabetes. Reducing exposure to electromagnetic pollution by avoidance or with specially designed GS filters may enable some diabetics to better regulate their blood sugar with less medication and borderline or pre-diabetics to remain non-diabetic longer.
Doubled Mortality, Impaired Memory and Death By Tumors in LongTerm EMF Study
Pulsed Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure in Rats Shows Grim Outcomes
Dirk Adang, a researcher at Catholic University in Louvan, Belguim, presented a PhD study on the effects of long?term exposure to pulsed electromagnetic fields in rats. Over 18 months (equivalent to 60 years for a human) it showed a doubled mortality rate, effects on the immune system, impaired memory and tumors. Until now, most RF studies have only looked at short?term effects. The subjects showed significantly higher white blood cell counts, with some increases not appearing until 11?18 months of exposure, suggesting an noteworthy delayed response, a significant loss of memory after 15 months of radiation exposure, where they didn’t recognize objects to which they had been previously exposed many times, and on autopsy the cause of death in the exposed rats was due to tumors in 16 out of 17 cases. These troubling effects occurred at a radiation level considered ‘safe’ today. (Ref. Le Soir, June 24, 2008)
Hybrid Autos Not the EMF Concern Some Think
Hybrids Safer Than Many Think
There is confusion about the potential EMF danger from hybrid automobiles. After a NY Times article appeared on this topic, environmental consultant Stan Hartman of Boulder prepared the attached analysis of a Toyota Prius. In it he explains the shortcoming of the Trifield Meter in measuring magnetic fields in high radiofrequency environments, which has lead many to believe the magnetic fields are higher than they actually are, as in the NY Times article. Read Stan’s report to learn how best to protect oneself, and especially children, from the fields that do exist. Download PDF Here.
Broadband Over Power Lines Coming to Rural America
Brings Radiation Onto Electrical Wiring
IBM (NYSE: IBM) announced in November 2008 has struck a deal with International Broadband Electric Communications to deploy Broadband Over Powerline technology (BPL) to electrical cooperatives that supply electricity to much of rural America. In the name of internet access and closing the ‘digital divide’, this controversial technology will use the existing electrical wiring in homes, offices and neighborhoods to carry potentially very dangerous radiofrequency radiation. For those who are electrically sensitive, retreating to rural areas to function productively will now no longer be an option. The Milham study should be read to understand the potential impact of chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields (“A New Electromagnetic Exposure Metric: High Frequency Voltage Transients Associated With Increased Cancer Incidence in Teachers in a California School” published in 2008 in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine). Further commentary on Broadband Over Powerline Technology by scientists can be found in the E?book “Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution” found on this site.
Health Concerns Over “White Space” Use in Broadcast Spectrum
Call for PreMarket Health Testing of Any New Applications
The FCC voted in November 2008 to open up vacant broadcast spectrum space between the broadcast TV stations for unlicensed use. Compared to Wi?Fi, the frequencies would be able to travel farther, and through walls. While use of these parts of the spectrun is reported to potentially bring cost efficiencies, there is concern it will interfere with current wireless technologies, including television broadcasters, performing artists, professional sports leagues, wireless microphones, wireless equipment in hospitals, including critical care equipment, and personal wireless technologies such as defibrillators and deep brain stimulation systems. Also, white space frequencies have been reported to be associated with cancer and neurological diseases in AM, FM and television broadcast studies. On November 3, Representative Dennis Kucinich, Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee, sent a letter asking FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to consider the potential health effect (http://domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=2269).
Industry must be held accountable for carelessness in introducing technologies that could be harmful or disruptive. Contact your Congress person to inquire about what premarket health testing will be required for technologies going forward that will use the ‘white space’.
Industry must be held accountable for carelessness in introducing technologies that could be harmful or disruptive. Contact your Congress person to inquire about what premarket health testing will be required for technologies going forward that will use the ‘white space’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
