Make no bones about it, the dosage is higher than a kite and it is not what the doctor ordered. Are your kids at risk at school in these wireless classrooms with the schools using commercial or industrial grade routers that broadcast on several frequencies at the same time? You want your kids slouched over an in use wireless radiation emitting cell phone all day? How about at home or everywhere else with these things right in front of their heads and in their laps all the time? That is exactly what your children are doing at school and at home. These tablet devices are microwave transmitters and emit wireless radiation trillions of times the normal background levels that many of us and our parents were exposed to as children.
What will it take to get the parents to act . I think that there are many obstacles, not the least of which is them dealing with the fact that they themselves have been irradiating their children since the beginning. So if they acknowledge this as harmful, then they have to deal with their guilt. It is time to deal with reality, swallow the pride and put your children ahead of your fears, the school administrators and your fair weather friends ladies and gentlemen. We are talking about your kids, a trillion dollar industry that doesn’t give a rat’s behind about them, and school administrators that will do whatever they are ordered to do without batting an eye.
Let us begin.
In this chart, we can see that for those that used a cell phone for over 1640 hours in 1-4 years, meaning about an hour a day, had an OR of 4.8 for developing a meningioma brain tumor and an OR of 3.77 for developing a glioma.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on
use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for malignant brain tumours
diagnosed in 1997-2003. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2006
It takes a certain amount of exposure for brain tumors to start to appear. In this chart by a Swedish team of independent researchers lead by Lennart Hardell, there was only a slight increase in risk from using a cell phone 1-1000 hours. The brain tumor risk really jumped, however, after 1000 hours of usage, and was much higher with prolonged usage.
According to the science, using a cell phone for over 1000 hours leads to an increased risk of brain cancer. According to the manufacturer, iPads emit as much or more radiation than cell phones. According to research, children absorb more radiation than adults. Given this evidence, what will happen to these children who spend at least 4 hours a day on an iPad at school, followed by another 4 hours at home? This is at least 2000 hours each and every year, and at least 12,000 hours of exposure in elementary school alone.
Papers finding adverse biological effects such as impaired fertility or damage to health from Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5 GHz).
Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1): 39-45.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5): 1695-1700.http://www.ncbi.nlm.
Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163. http://www.ncbi.nlm.
Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300.http://www.icems.eu/
Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic fields.http://www.istanbul.
Margaritis L.H. et al., 2013. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol Med., Epub ahead of print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
Naziroğlu M. and Gumral 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol. 85(8): 680-689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.
Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology 88(6): 449–456.http://www.ncbi.nlm.
Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices. Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, Epub ahead of print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
EMF Refugee:
The International Coalition for an Electromagnetic Safe Planet (IC-ESP)
“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”
George Orwell
Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5
GHz).Papers listed are only those where exposures were 16V/m or below.
Someone using a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computer can be exposed to
electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m. Papers are in alphabetical order.
A file of first pages, for printing, can be found here (please pass on
to schools).Wi-Fi:
Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of
deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves
emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology
9(2): 223-229.http://www.ncbi.nlm.
internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases
sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1):
39-45.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
induce DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro by a
non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. American Society for
Reproductive Medicine 66th Annual Meeting: O-249
http://wifiinschools.org.uk/
oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur
Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5):
1695-1700.http://www.ncbi.nlm.
Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on
oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from
wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability
shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic
nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:
273-300.http://www.icems.eu/
part 2.
Havas M. and Marrongelle J. 2013. Replication of heart rate
variability provocation study with 2.45GHz cordless phone confirms
original findings. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2):
253-266.https://www.ncbi.nlm.
Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert
gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on
Biological Effects of Electromagnetic
fields.http://www.istanbul.
Margaritis L.H. et al., 2013. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker
responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol Med., Epub ahead of
print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
Naziroğlu M. and Gumral 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and
selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and
electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol.
85(8): 680-689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative
stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human
leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology
88(6): 449–456.http://www.ncbi.nlm.
Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45
GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+)
channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav.
105(3): 683-92.http://www.ncbi.nlm.
Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against
oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices.
Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, Epub ahead of
print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300
component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task.
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
(Wi-Fi alters brain activity in young
adults:http://wifiinschools.
Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced
Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus
musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative
stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless
devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
A few more studies of similar microwave frequencies at low exposures
(6V/m or below):
(Not comprehensive)
Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana
temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn.
Biol. Med. 29(1-2):31-35. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Erdinc O. O. et al., 2003. Electromagnetic waves of 900MHz in acute
pentylenetetrazole model in ontogenesis in mice. Neurol. Sci.
24:111-116.http://www.ncbi.
Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Stimulation of murine natural killer cells
by weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range. Biofizika
44:737–741.http://www.ncbi.
Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I.
Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor
production in mouse cells, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg.
49:29–35.http://www.ncbi.nlm.
Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability
shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic
nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:
273-300.http://www.icems.eu/
part 2.
Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Microwave exposure affecting
reproductive system in male rats. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.
162(2):416-428.http://www.
Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure
effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.
158:126-139.http://www.ncbi.
Khurana V. G. et al., 2010. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk
from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health
16:263–267.http://www.ncbi.
Maier R. et al., 2004. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on
cognitive processes – a pilot study on pulsed field interference
with cognitive regeneration. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 110:
46-52.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
Nittby H. et al., 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term
exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29:
219-232.http://www.ncbi.nlm.
Novoselova E. G. et al., 1998. Stimulation of production of tumor
necrosis factor by murine macrophages when exposed in vivo and in
vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range Bofizika
43:1132–1333.
Novoselova E. G. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II.
Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring
antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg.
49:37–41.http://www.ncbi.nlm.
Otitoloju A. A. et al., 2010. Preliminary study on the induction of
sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to
radiofrequency radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication
Base Stations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84(1):51-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Panagopoulos D. J.et al., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony
radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna.
Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Vol 86(5):345-357.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Persson B. R. R. et al., 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in
rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication.
Wireless Networks 3: 455-461.
Pyrpasopoulou A. et al., 2004. Bone morphogenic protein expression in
newborn kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
Bioelectromagnetics
25:216-27.http://www.ncbi.nlm.
Salford L. G. et al., 2010. Effects of microwave radiation upon the
mammalian blood-brain barrier. European Journal of Oncology Library
Vol.
5:333-355.http://www.icems.eu/
part 2.
Salford L. G., et al., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain
after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ. Health
Perspect. 111:881-883. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
http://wifiinschools.org.uk/
“Two new papers are published in Pathophysiology this fall that may be
of interest to you.
These papers are the same content as the 2012 BioInitiative Report
Chapter 20
by Martha Herbert and Cindy Sage
http://www.bioinitiative.org/
.
This counters the usual criticism that ‘it isn’t good science’ unless
it is peer-review published.
The US annual cost for autism is reported to be $137 billion.
That compares to the EU annual cost for cancer (105 billion
euros/$147 billion USD)
and to heart disease ((165 billion euros/$227 billion USD).
Staggering costs, and the prevalence of autism now in the US is one
child in 88
(one child in 50 by 2012 estimates that include the 8 yr and younger
cohort).
In 1975, it was one child in 5000. This is a 100-fold increase.
It parallels the explosive rise in wireless technologies and their
pulsed RFR. It should be
considered another possible risk factor for autism, autism spectrum
conditions and ADHD.
https://thefullertoninformer.com/carbonyl-iron-and-orange-county-the-autism-capital-of-the-state/
#1 by Willy on October 23, 2013 - 11:18 am
Does Cell Phone Use Alter Brain Activity?
A study entitled “Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism” has generated news headlines such as this story in the NY Times. This study purports to show that brain activity (technically glucose metabolism) increased in areas of the brain closest to a cellular telephone. There are a number of potential problems with this study. Some of these are covered in the following article: “Chatting on your cell phone may boost brain metabolism”. The British National Health Service has also published a commentary on this study: Mobiles `increase brain activity’.
The study used PET scans to produce images of glucose metabolism through a “slice” of the brain. Changes in glucose metabolism were measured with a cell phone on for 50 minutes vs. being off. The size of the glucose increase reported in the study is quite small (35.7 vs 33.3 mol/100 g per minute). The authors report that other studies similar to theirs have had “yielded variable results”. Some have “reported increases, decreases and increases, or no changes in CBF”. Like all preliminary findings, these results must be repeatable to be accepted as real. There is a long history of preliminary false “positive” findings of cell phone EMF on biological processes that failed attempts at replication.
There are a couple of basic problems with the data underlying this study. The authors misreported the SAR value for this model of cell phone. The authors reported a SAR value of 0.901W/kg, according to the manufacturer’s report the correct value for the right side of the head is 0.769W/kg. More importantly, it is highly unlikely that the cell phone was operating at peak power. Typically, a cell phone will operate at around 1% of peak power. The authors did not make any measurement of the actual SAR for this study. The map of the electric field shown in Fig 1 cannot be correct. The authors state that this was calculated: “using the far-field approximation, of a dipole field”. This is a method that is more than 20 years old and is not considered valid for a cell phone next to the head. Experts in this area use much more advanced models for calculating field strength distribution maps. These deficiencies are indications that this study is poorly designed and that the authors did not consult with any experts in the testing of cell phones.
The authors of this study note that the increase in glucose activity seen here is actually less dramatic than that seen when the brain goes to work on a visual task. This indicates that the PET scan is very sensitive since even simple visual stimulation can increase brain metabolic activity. It is likely that temperature rise can also influence this activity. Numerical computations indicate that the steady state temperature increase in the brain due to cell phone EMF at the 1.6W/kg limit can be 0.1 C at the highest spot. But during a 50 minute phone call, it has been shown that there is a several degrees Celsius temperature rise on the cheek and ear after a 30 minute call due to the blocking of air circulation and also heating of the cell phone itself due to its internal power consumption. The heat conducted from the phone to the head can be significant. So another possible explanation for this result is that heat directly or indirectly due to the cell phone is what causes the slight change in metabolism.
The following is from a commentary on this study by the British National Health service: “Any increased activity in the brain cells due to thinking, for example, could have led to this difference, and the wide confidence interval suggests that the difference in metabolism could have been as low as 0.67/33.3 μmol/100 g per minute or 2%.” “It is possible that the participants could tell if the phone was on or off or receiving a call even if they were set to silent. For example, the phone that was turned on may have been warmer. This was not tested or reported by the researchers. This is important because knowing whether the phone was making a call could have influenced the underlying brain activity.”
The lack of control for heat is another indication of poor study design. The authors should have at least repeated the tests with a heat source that was equivalent to the active cell phone in order to control for this variable. The physics of the effects of cell phone EMF is well understood. Heating is the only plausible effect. The small direct and indirect heating effects from cell phones do not cause harm. The glucose change may simply be the body’s response to this heat. The authors of this study concede that their findings are “of unknown clinical significance”. In other words, assuming that their findings are correct, it is not clear that there are any harmful effects on health.
#2 by Joe Imbriano on October 23, 2013 - 9:57 pm
This is a typical “muddy the waters technique”. Thank you.
#3 by Angie B on October 24, 2013 - 9:50 am
Who is paying you, Willy?
#4 by Angie B on October 24, 2013 - 1:20 pm
Willy, Willy, Willy, are you in the same camp as Dr. Roman Schulze, a physician who advocates irradiating children so that wireless devices can be used in the classroom?
Are you not wanting to err on the side of caution for our children?
#5 by Ray on October 24, 2013 - 3:50 pm
Doubt is their product.
What goes through a person’s mind when they ignored 1000’s of peer reviewed studies reporting adverse effects?
How do they not recognize that this is more than enough evidence to elect a safer option for getting the internet to the computers?
How does one turn a blind eye to science that shows wireless radiation causes cancer, and other effects?
As long as the industry can keep the waters muddy, they can keep making a killing.