Tag Archives: Radiofrequency radiation

EMF Exposure and Potential Health Effects

“In today’s world, everyone is exposed to two types of EMFs: (1) extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF) from electrical and electronic appliances and power lines and (2) radiofrequency radiation (RF) from wireless devices such as cell phones and cordless phones, cellular antennas and towers, and broadcast transmission towers.  In this report we will use the  term EMFs when referring to all electromagnetic fields in general; and the terms ELF and RF when referring to the specific type of exposure.  They are both types of non-ionizing radiation, which means that they do not have sufficient energy to break off electrons from their orbits around atoms and ionize (charge) the atoms, as do x-rays, CT scans, and other forms of ionizing  radiation.

“Main Reasons for Disagreement among Experts: There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect us.  Until we know if there is a lower limit below which bioeffects and adverse health impacts do not occur, it is unwise from a public health perspective to continue “business-as-usual” deploying new technologies that increase ELF and RF exposures, particularly involuntary exposures.

1) Scientists and public health policy experts use very different definitions of the standard of evidence used to judge the science, so they come to different conclusions about what to do.  Scientists do have a role, but it is not exclusive and other opinions matter.
2) We are all talking about essentially the same scientific studies, but use a different way of measuring when “enough is enough” or “proof exists”.
3) Some experts keep saying that all studies have to be consistent (turn out the same way every time) before they are comfortable saying an effect exists.  
4) Some experts think that it is enough to look only at short-term, acute effects.
5) Other experts say that it is imperative we have studies over longer time (showing the effects of chronic exposures) since that is what kind of world we live in.
6) Some experts say that everyone, including the very young, the elderly, pregnant women, and people with illnesses have to be considered –others say only the average person (or in the case of RF, a six-foot tall man) matter.
7) There is no unexposed population, making it harder to see increased risk of diseases.
8) The lack of consensus about a single biological mechanism of action.
9) The strength of human epidemiological studies reporting risks from ELF and RF exposures, but animal studies don’t show a strong toxic effect.  
10) Vested interests have a substantial influence on the health debate.

“Today’s public exposure limits for telecommunications are based on the presumption that heating of tissue (for RF)  or induced electric currents in the body (for ELF) are the only concerns when living organisms are exposed to RF.

“In the last few decades, it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that bioeffects and some adverse health effects occur at far lower levels of RF and ELF exposure where no heating (or induced currents) occurs at all; some effects are shown to occur at several hundred thousand times below the existing public safety limits where heating is an impossibility.

“It appears it is the INFORMATION conveyed by electromagnetic radiation (rather than heat) that causes biological changes – some of these biological changes may lead to loss of wellbeing, disease and even death.

“Effects occur at non-thermal or low-intensity exposure levels thousands of times below the levels that federal agencies say should keep the public safe. For many new devices operating with wireless technologies, the devices are exempt from any regulatory standards. The existing standards have been proven to be inadequate to control against harm from low-intensity, chronic exposures, based on any reasonable, independent assessment of the scientific literature. It means that an entirely new basis (a biological basis) for new exposure standards is needed.  New standards need to take into account what we have learned about the effects of ELF and RF (all non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation and to design new limits based on biologically demonstrated effects that are important to proper biological function in living organisms.   It is vital to do so because the explosion of new sources has created unprecedented levels of artificial electromagnetic fields that now cover all but remote areas of the habitable space on earth.  Mid-course corrections are needed in the way we accept, test and deploy  new technologies that expose us to ELF and RF in order to avert public health problems of a global nature.

“There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect us.  Until we know if there is a lower limit below which bioeffects and adverse health impacts do not occur, it is unwise from a public health perspective to continue “business-as- usual” deploying new technologies that increase ELF and RF exposures, particularly involuntary exposures.

Childhood Leukemia and Other Childhood Cancers

“The evidence that power lines and other sources of ELF are consistently associated with higher rates of childhood leukemia has resulted in the International Agency for Cancer Research (an arm of the World Health Organization) to classify ELF as a Possible Human Carcinogen (in the Group 2B carcinogen list).  Leukemia is the most common type of cancer in children.

“There is little doubt that exposure to ELF causes childhood leukemia.

“The exposure levels for increased risk are quite low –just above background or ambient levels and much lower than current exposure limits.

“There is some evidence that other childhood cancers may be related to ELF exposure but not enough studies have been done.

Brain Tumors and Acoustic Neuromas

“Radiofrequency radiation from cell phone and cordless phone exposure has been linked in more  than one dozen studies to increased risk for brain tumors and/or acoustic neuromas (a tumor in the brain on a nerve related to our hearing).

“People who have used a cell phonefor ten years or more have higher rates of malignant brain tumor and acoustic neuromas.   It is worse if the cell phone has been used primarily on one side of the head.

“For brain tumors, people who have used a cell phone for 10 years or longer have a 20% increase in risk (when the cell phone is used on both sides of the head).  For people who have used a cell phone for 10 years or longer predominantly on one side of the head, there is a 200% increased risk of a brain tumor.  This information relies on the combined results of many brain tumor/cell phone studies taken together (a meta-analysis of studies).

“People who have used a cordless phone for ten years or more have higher rates of malignant brain tumor and acoustic neuromas. It is worse if the cordless phone has been used primarily on one side of the head.

“The risk of brain tumor (high-grade malignant glioma) from cordless phone use is 220% higher (both sides of the head).  The risk from use of a cordless phone is 470% higher when used mostly on only one side of the head.

“For acoustic neuromas, there is a 30% increased risk with cell phone use at ten years and longer; and a 240% increased risk of acoustic neuroma when the cell phone is used mainly on one side of the head.  These risks are based on the combined results of several studies (a meta-analysis of studies).
 
“For use of cordless phones, the increased risk of acoustic neuroma is three-fold higher (310%) when the phone is mainly used on one side of the head.

“The current standard for exposure to the emissions of cell phones and cordless phones is not safe considering studies reporting long-term brain tumor and acoustic neuroma risks.

Other Adult Cancers

“There are multiple studies that show statistically significant relationships between occupational exposure and leukemia in adults (see Chapter 11), in spite of major limitations in the exposure assessment.

“The evidence for a relationship between exposure and breast cancer is relatively strong in men (Erren, 2001), and some (by no means all) studies show female breast cancer also to be elevated with increased exposure (see Chapter 12).  Brain tumors and acoustic neuromas are more common in exposed persons (see Chapter 10).  There is less published evidence on other cancers, but Charles et al. (2003) report that workers in the highest 10% category for EMF exposure were twice as likely to die of prostate cancer as those exposed at lower levels.

“In total the scientific evidence for adult disease associated with EMF exposure is sufficiently strong for adult cancers that preventive steps are appropriate, even if not all reports have shown exactly the same positive relationship.  This is especially true since many factors reduce our ability to see disease patterns that might be related to EMF exposure: there is no unexposed population for comparison, for example, and other difficulties in exposure assessment, The evidence for a relationship between EMF exposure and adult cancers and neurodegenerative diseases is sufficiently strong at present to merit preventive actions to reduce EMF exposure.

Breast Cancer

“There is rather strong evidence from multiple areas of scientific investigation that ELF is related to breast cancer.  Over the last two decades there have been numerous epidemiological studies (studies of human illness) on breast cancer in both men and women, although this relationship remains controversial among scientists.  Many of these studies report that ELF exposures are related to increased risk of breast cancer (not all studies report such effects, but then, we do not expect 100% or even 50% consistency in results in science, and do not require it to take reasonable preventative action).

“The evidence from studies on women in the workplace rather strongly suggests that ELF is a risk factor for breast cancer for women with long-term exposures of 10 mG and higher.

“Breast cancer studies of people who work in relatively high ELF exposures (10 mG and above) show higher rates of this disease.  Most studies of workers who are exposed to ELF have defined high exposure levels to be somewhere between 2 mG and 10 mG; however this kind of mixing of relatively low to relatively high ELF exposure just acts to
dilute out real risk levels.  Many of the occupational studies group exposures so that the highest group is exposed to 4 mG and above.  What this means is that a) few people are exposed to much higher levels and b) illness patterns show up at relatively low ELF levels of 4 mG and above.  This is another way of demonstrating that existing ELF limits that are set at 933-1000 mG are irrelevant to the exposure levels reporting increased risks.

“Laboratory studies that examine human breast cancer cells have shown that ELF exposure between 6 mG and 12 mG can interfere with protective effects of melatonin that fights the growth of these breast cancer cells.  For a decade, there has been evidence that human breast cancer cells grow faster if exposed to ELF at low environmental levels.  This is thought to be because ELF exposure can reduce melatonin levels in the body.   The presence of melatonin in breast cancer cell cultures is known to reduce the growth of cancer cells.  The absence of melatonin (because of ELF exposure or other reasons) is known to result in more cancer cell growth.

“Given the very high lifetime risks for developing breast cancer, and the critical importance of prevention; ELF exposures should be reduced for all people who are in high ELF environments for prolonged periods of time.

“Reducing ELF exposure is particularly important for people who have breast cancer.  The recovery environment should have low ELF levels given the evidence for poorer survival rates for childhood leukemia patients in ELF fields over 2 mG or 3 mG.  Preventative action for those who may be at higher risk for breast cancer is also warranted (particularly for those taking tamoxifen as a way to reduce the risk of getting breast cancer, since in addition to reducing the effectiveness of melatonin, ELF exposure may also reduce the effectiveness of tamoxifen at these same low exposure levels).  There is no excuse for ignoring the substantial body of evidence we already have that supports an association between breast cancer and ELF exposure; waiting for conclusive evidence is untenable given the enormous costs and societal and personal burdens caused by this disease.

“These are just some of the cancer issues to discuss.  It may be reasonable now to make the assumption that all cancers, and other disease endpoints might be related to, or worsened by exposures to EMFs (both ELF and RF).

Changes in the Nervous System and Brain Function

“Exposure to electromagnetic fields has been studies in connection with Alzheimer’s disease, motor neuron disease and Parkinson’s disease. (4)  These diseases all involve the death of specific neurons and may be classified as neurodegenerative diseases. There is evidence that high levels of amyloid beta are a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, and exposure to ELF can increase this substance in the brain.  There is considerable evidence that melatonin can protect the brain against damage leading to Alzheimer’s disease, and also strong evidence that exposure to ELF can reduce melatonin levels.  Thus it is hypothesized that one of the body’s main protections against developing Alzheimer’s disease (melatonin) is less available to the body when people are exposed to ELF. Prolonged exposure to ELF fields could alter calcium (Ca2+) levels in neurons and induce oxidative stress (4).   It is also possible that prolonged exposure to ELF fields may stimulate neurons (particularly large motor neurons) into synchronous firing, leading to damage by the buildup of toxins.

“Evidence for a relationship between exposure and the neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer’s and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is strong and relatively consistent.

“Alzheimer’s disease is a disease of the nervous system.  There is strong evidence that long-term exposure to ELF is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease.

“Laboratory studies show that the nervous system of both humans and animals is sensitive to ELF and RF.  Measurable changes in brain function and behavior occur at levels associated with new technologies including cell phone use. Exposing humans to cell phone radiation can change brainwave activity at levels as low as 0.1 watt per kilogram SAR (W/Kg)*** in comparison to the US allowable level of 1.6 W/Kg and the International Commission for Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) allowable level of 2.0 W/Kg.  It can affect memory and learning.  It can affect normal brainwave activity.  ELF and RF exposures at low levels are able to change behavior in animals.

“There is little doubt that electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones and cell phone use affect electrical activity of the brain.

“Changes in the way in which the brain and nervous system react depend very much on the specific exposures. Most studies only look at short-term effects, so the long-term consequences of exposures are not known.

“There is large variability in the results of ELF and RF testing, which would be expected based on the large variability of factors that can influence test results.  However, it is clearly demonstrated that under some conditions of exposure, the brain and nervous system functions of humans are altered.  The consequence of long-term or prolonged exposures have not been thoroughly studied in either adults or in children.

“The consequence of prolonged exposures to children, whose nervous systems continue to develop until late adolescence, is unknown at this time.  This could have serious implications to adult health and functioning in society if years of exposure of the young to both ELF and RF result in diminished capacity for thinking, judgment, memory, learning, and control over behavior.

“People who are chronically exposed to low-level wireless antenna emissions report symptoms such as problems in sleeping (insomnia), fatigue, headache, dizziness, grogginess, lack of concentration, memory problems, ringing in the ears (tinnitus), problems with balance and orientation, and difficulty in multi-tasking.  In children, exposures to cell phone radiation have resulted in changes in brain oscillatory activity during some memory tasks.  Although scientific studies as yet have not been able to confirm a cause-and-effect relationship; these complaints are widespread and the cause of significant public concern in some countries where wireless technologies are fairly mature and widely distributed (Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Greece, Israel). For example, the roll-out of the 3rd Generation wireless phones (and related community-wide antenna RF emissions in the Netherlands) caused almost immediate public complaints of illness.

“Conflicting results from those few studies that have been conducted may be based on the difficulty in providing non-exposed environments for testing to compare to environments that are intentionally exposed.  People traveling to laboratories for testing are pre-exposed to a multitude of RF and ELF exposures, so they may already be symptomatic prior to actual testing.  Also complicating this is good evidence that RF exposures testing behavioral changes show delayed results; effects are observed after termination of RF exposure.  This suggests a persistent change in the nervous system that may be evident only after time has passed, so is not observed during a short testing period.

Effects on Genes (DNA)

“The European research program (REFLEX) documented many changes in normal biological functioning in tests on DNA. The significance of these results is that such effects are directly related to the question of whether human health risks might occur, when these changes in genes and DNA happen. This large research effort produced information on EMFs effects from more than a dozen different researchers.

“Both ELF and RF exposures can be considered genotoxic (will damage DNA) under certain conditions of exposure, including exposure levels that are lower than existing safety limits.

Effects on Stress Proteins (Heat Shock Proteins)

“Very low-level ELF and RF exposures can cause cells to produce stress proteins, meaning that the cell recognizes ELF and RF exposures as harmful.  This is another important way in which scientists have documented that ELF and RF exposures can be harmful, and it happens at levels far below the existing public safety standards.

“An additional concern is that if the stress goes on too long, the protective effect is diminished. There is a reduced response if the stress goes on too long, and the protective effect is reduced. This means the cell is less protected against damage, and it is why prolonged or chronic exposures may be quite harmful, even at very low intensities.

Effects on the Immune System

“There is substantial evidence that ELF and RF can cause inflammatory reactions, allergy reactions and change normal immune function at levels allowed by current public safety standards.

“The body’s immune defense system senses danger from ELF and RF exposures, and targets an immune defense against these fields, much like the body’s reaction in producing stress proteins. These are additional indicators that very low intensity ELF and RF exposures are a) recognized by cells and b) can cause reactions as if the exposure is harmful.  Chronic exposure to factors that increase allergic and inflammatory responses on a continuing basis are likely to be harmful to health.  Chronic inflammatory responses can lead to cellular, tissue and organ damage over time. Many chronic diseases are thought to be related to chronic problems with immune system function.

“There is very clear evidence that exposures to ELF and RF at levels associated with cell phone use, computers, video display terminals, televisions, and other sources can cause these skin reactions.  Changes in skin sensitivity have been measured by skin biopsy, and the findings are remarkable.  Some of these reactions happen at levels equivalent to those of wireless technologies in daily life. Mast cells are also found in the brain and heart, perhaps targets of immune response by cells responding to ELF and RF exposures, and this might account for some of the other symptoms commonly reported (headache, sensitivity to light, heart arrhythmias and other cardiac symptoms).  Chronic provocation byexposure to ELF and RF can lead to immune dysfunction, chronic allergic responses, inflammatory diseases and ill health if they occur on a continuing basis over time.

Plausible Biological Mechanisms

“Plausible biological mechanisms are already identified that can reasonably account for most biological effects reported for exposure to RF and ELF at low-intensity levels (oxidative stress and DNA damage from free radicals leading to genotoxicity; molecular mechanisms at very low energies are plausible links to disease, e.g., effect on electron transfer rates linked to oxidative damage, DNA activation linked to abnormal biosynthesis and mutation).    It is also important to remember that traditional public health and epidemiological determinations do not require a proven mechanism  before inferring a causal link between EMFs exposure and disease.

“Oxidative stress through the action of free radical damage to DNA is a plausible biological mechanism for cancer and diseases that involve damage from ELF to the central nervous system.

Cite:
(1) http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec01_2007_summary_for_public.pdf

The complete BioInitiative Report:
http://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/

Dirty Electricity and the Diseases of Civilization

 Another deliberately hidden critical facet of the damage inflicted by non-native electromagnetic energy on the human body is the effect of Dirty Electricity.

“Electric and magnetic fields, or EMF, are emitted from electrical devices or anything that uses electricity. Earth currents are low electrical currents found in soil. Natural activity deep within the earth causes some of these currents along with above ground electrical energy to produce low magnitude electrical currents. Transients and high frequency noise or signals come from the wiring of buildings, and from the use of common electrical devices found in homes and offices. The noise is created when electrical current is transmitted and interrupted.

“In these characterizations of electrical pollution, high frequency signals pollute regular electrical currents traveling in wires and currents through the earth. To better understand the background for the causes of electrical pollution, it is helpful to learn the basics of how the electrical current works.

“Regular “clean” power enters homes, buildings, and offices at 60 Hz. The increased use of electrical power overloads electrical grid base, which distributes the power. Power is “dirty” or polluted when it contains the high frequency signals flowing through overloaded wires, and not just clean 60 Hz power.

“The pollution of electricity is often compared to how water is polluted. At the source, water is clean. It is what comes with the water and pollutants along its path to the recipient that makes the water harmful to humans. However, like water pollution in many ways, electrical pollution is complex and often difficult to understand for the common consumer. The causes are varied and sometimes cannot be identified with certainty. However, the bulk of overloaded electricity bases can be attributed to the reliance on electrical appliances in today’s environment.

“In the 1950’s, the National Electrical Safety Code required a neutral wire to return wire to utilities. In this code it was forbidden to use the earth as a neutral return. This was a worsening problem in rural, farm areas where the currents were being returned to the soil affecting the feeding of animals. Later, the Public Service Commission allowed utilities to use grounding rods to serve as neutral wires for return. This was done instead of increasing the size of the neutral rods. Installing ground rods is a less costly solution than making the neutral rods larger in size. The grounding rods serve as an alternate and additional pathway for the energy to return to the substation instead of to the earth.

“Those concerned about electrical pollution say the size of neutral wires to make sure energy is returned to its source needs to be much larger. The current regulated size of the neutrals is not large enough to handle the load due to the greater use of electricity. The currents that are not properly directed are emitted into the environment or into homes or offices where electrical devices are widely relied upon by consumers. Neutral wires are not often sized for the modern electrical load. Power that is misdirected into the earth or home environments contains a much higher frequency that the 60 Hz classification making it “dirty” or unclean.

“Dr. Robert O. Becker, author of Cross Currents and the Body Electric stated that “I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time that the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields. I consider that to be far greater on a global scale that warming”.

“The high frequency currents most commonly created by computers and other electronic devices are circulated by various wires and systems, emitting the high frequency currents into home or office environments. Many cases have been documented where decreasing the amount of “dirty” electricity has lessened the effects of health problems and complications. Some of those health problems being attributed to electrical pollution include fibromyalgia, attention deficit disorder, asthma, chronic fatigue syndrome, diabetes, and asthma. There are also cases that detail that electrical pollution aggravates other preexisting conditions like multiple sclerosis and migraine headaches.(2)

“The diseases of civilization or lifestyle diseases include cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes and are thought to be caused by changes in diet, exercise habits, and lifestyle which occur as countries industrialize. I think that the critical variable which causes the radical changes in mortality accompanying industrialization is electrification. Beginning in 1979, with the work of Wertheimer and Leeper, there has been increasing evidence that some facet of electromagnetic field exposure is associated epidemiologically with an increased incidence of leukemia, certain other cancers and non-cancers like Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and suicide. With the exception of a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum from infra red through visible light, ultraviolet light and cosmic rays, the rest of the spectrum is man-made and foreign to human evolutionary experience. I suggest that from the time that Thomas Edison started his direct current electrical distribution system in the 1880s in New York City until now, when most of the world is electrified, the electricity carried high frequency voltage transients which caused and continue to cause what are considered to be the normal diseases of civilization. Even today, many of these diseases are absent or have very low incidence in places without electricity.

“When Edison and Tesla opened the Pandora’s box of electrification in the 1880s, the US vital registration system was primitive at best, and infectious disease death rates were falling rapidly. City residents had higher mortality rates and shorter life expectancy than rural residents. Rural white males in 1900 had an expectation of life at birth of over 10 years longer than urban residents.

“Although the authors of the 1930 US vital statistics report noted a 58.2% cancer mortality excess in urban areas, it raised no red flags. The census bureau residential electrification data was obviously not linked to the mortality data. Epidemiologists in that era were still concerned with the communicable diseases. Court Brown and Doll reported the appearance of the child- hood leukemia age peak in 1961, forty years after the US vital statistics mortality data on which it was based was available. I reported a cluster of childhood leukemia a decade after it occurred, only because I looked for it. Real time or periodic analysis of national or regional vital statistics data is still only rarely done in the US.

“The real surprise in this data set is that cardiovascular disease, diabetes and suicide, as well as cancer seem to be strongly related to level of residential electrification. A community-based epidemiologic study of urban rural differences in coronary heart disease and its risk factors was carried out in the mid 1980s in New Delhi, India and in a rural area 50 km away. The prevalence of coronary heart disease was three times higher in the urban residents, despite the fact that the rural residents smoked more and had higher total caloric and saturated fat intakes. Most cardiovascular disease risk factors were two to three times more common in the urban residents. Rural electrification projects are still being carried out in parts of the rural area which was studied.

“It seems unbelievable that mortality differences of this magnitude could go unexplained for over 70 years after they were first reported and 40 years after they were noticed. I think that in the early part of the 20th century nobody was looking for answers. By the time EMF epidemiology got started in 1979 the entire population was exposed to EMFs. Cohort studies were therefore using EMF-exposed population statistics to compute expected values, and case-control studies were comparing more exposed cases to less exposed controls. The mortality from lung cancer in two pack a day smokers is over 20 times that of non-smokers but only three times that of one pack a day smokers. After 1956, the EMF equivalent of a non-smoker ceased to exist in the US. An exception to this is the Amish who live without electricity. Like rural US residents in the 1940s, Amish males in the 1970s had very low cancer and cardiovascular disease mortality rates.

“If this hypothesis and findings outlined here are even partially true, the explosive recent increase in radiofrequency radiation, and high frequency voltage transients sources, especially in urban areas from cell phones and towers, terrestrial antennas, wi-fi and wi-max systems, broadband internet over power lines, and personal electronic equipment, suggests that like the 20th century EMF epidemic, we may already have a 21st century epidemic of morbidity and mortality underway caused by electromagnetic fields. The good news is that many of these diseases may be preventable by environmental manipulation, if society chooses to.(1)

 
 

How To Search For Cell Tower And Antenna Locations

 

http://www.antennasearch.com/

The link above is to the Antenna Search site, which can be used determine the locations of cell towers and antennas that are operating around a specific location.

Get detailed information on more than 1.9 million towers and antennas in the U.S.

Includes Google maps, ownership details and contact information.

Pinpoint existing towers, future towers and even small hidden antennas.

Get detailed information on:

Existing Towers: Registered and Non-Registered structures where antennas are placed. Towers may be used for various services including Cellular, Paging, Microwave and others.

Future Towers: Newly filed (or pending) applications to construct new towers. Application info includes location coordinates and detailed ownership data.

Antennas: The actual emitters of radio signals. Antennas can be placed on towers (multiple) or can be installed stand alone on top of existing buildings. Stand alone antennas are small (well below 200 ft). You may also check multiple antennas to determine which cell phone carriers are located on a particular tower.

– Quick Statistics (as of Sunday 3/13/2016 Weekly Update) –

Total(US)                     Top State

Towers 599,462             Texas (58,648)
Antennas 1,818,436           California (134,144)

Electromagnetic Field Interactions With Biological Systems

The following information was shared at a symposia of the International Society for Bioelectricity and was presented 24 years ago in 1992. The theme topics for the Symposia were cancer, neural function, cell signaling, pineal gland function, and immune system interactions

“If one used electromagnetic energy sensors to view the world…..100 years ago, the world would have looked quite dim. Now the world glows with electromagnetic (em) energy emissions at most frequencies of the non-ionizing portion of the spectrum, such as power line fields, radio waves, microwaves, etc.

Living organisms are complex electrochemical systems that up until very recently have interacted with a relatively simple and weak magnetic field and few EMF energy emitters.

“A wide range of living organisms, including humans, [utilize EMF] energy to regulate various critical cellular systems; we see this in the complex of circadian rhythms.

“Thus, it is not surprising that the massive introduction of electromagnetic fields in an enormous range of new frequencies, modulations, and intensities in recent years has affected living organisms. In fact, it would be incredible and beyond belief if these electromagnetic fields did not affect the electrochemical systems we call living organisms.

“Much of the literature on electromagnetic field interactions published before the middle 1980s is irrelevant to biologists. Most of it was generated by the engineering community’s attempt to find out if their high-power equipment creates a hazard. Thus, little attention was paid to the variables that are important in biology. Instead, efforts were wasted in fruitless controversies such as whether the effects seen were thermal or non-thermal.

“In recent years, though, the convergence of a number of lines of research has led a diversity of biologists to carry out experiments using low-intensity electromagnetic fields to study the function of living cells and systems.

“The toxicology model used by investigators in earlier years was not the appropriate model on which to design experiments. It was assumed that electromagnetic fields are a foreign substance to living organisms, like lead or cyanide. With foreign substances in a toxicology model, the greater the dose, the greater the effect-a dose-response relationship. Thus, experiments tended to be designed with high doses and with little regard for other parameters such as modulation and frequency. This is one reason why those earlier studies yielded so little useful information.

“As noted [above], electromagnetic fields are not a foreign substance. Living organisms are electrochemical systems that use emfs in everything from protein folding through cellular communication to nervous system function. A more appropriate model of how living organisms can be expected to respond to em fields would be to compare them to a radio receiver.

“An electromagnetic signal a radio detects (let us call it signal x) and transduces into the sound of music is almost un-measurably weak. Yet the radio is immersed in a sea of em signals from power lines, radio stations, TV stations, radars, etc. The radio doesn’t notice the sea of signals because they are not the appropriate frequency or modulation. Thus, they don’t disturb the music we hear. If we expose the radio to an appropriately tuned em signal or harmonic, however, even if it is very weak compared to signal x, it will interfere with the music. Similarly, if we expose a living system to a very weak em signal, if the signal is appropriately “tuned,” it could facilitate or interfere with normal function. This is the model that much biological data and theory tell us to use, not a toxicology model. And this is the model that is now starting to be used so fruitfully.”(1)

And yes, more researchers understand this and realize the need to use this approach in their experiments, but funding for research has been and is currently limited, as is any motivation by the controlled media to expose the results of those studies that have been done.

And currently there are nearly as many cell phones as there are people.

That’s a lot of lab rats…….

 
 

Low Intensity Radiofrequency Radiation: A New Oxidant For Living Cells

There exist a great number of studies showing the negative effects of non-native EMF. As usual, the cell phone industry has led the way in burying this evidence under fallacious claims of safety and labeling whistle-blowers and truth-tellers as wackos.

Just standard operating procedure to keep the cash flow uninterrupted.

Where have we seen this before?

“Radiofrequency radiation (RFR), e.g. electromagnetic waves emitted by our cell phones and Wi-Fi, are referred to as non-ionizing. This means that in contrast to the ionizing radiation, which does induce  ionization of water and biologically  important macromolecules, RFR does not have a capacity for such effects. Unlike, for example X-rays, the energy of RFR is not enough to break electrons off the molecules. However, is RFR completely safe for public health? Traditionally, the industry and the public bodies said yes. Nevertheless, new research data change this perception.

“Oxidative stress is an induced imbalance between pro-oxidant and antioxidant systems resulting in oxidative damage  to  proteins, lipids and DNA; and is closely connected to overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in living cells. The  notion that the low intensity RFR can bring about significant oxidative stress in living cells has been doubted for years. The logic is simple: as low intensity radiofrequency electromagnetic waves are not able to ionize molecules, they can do nothing   wrong for the living tissues. However, during the last decades a worldwide increase in penetration of wireless communication systems, including cellular telephony and Wi-Fi, attracted massive attention to possible biological effects of low intensity RFR. Consequently, the recent epidemiological studies unexpectedly indicated a significant increase in the occurrence of various  tumors among longterm and “heavy” users of cellular phones. These include brain tumors, acoustic neuromas, tumors of parotid  glands, seminomas, melanomas and lymphomas. Similarly, an increase in tumor incidence  among  people  living nearby cellular base transmitting stations was also reported. As a result, in 2011 the World Health Organization/International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency radiation as a possible carcinogen to humans.

“To that, a new medical condition, so-called electro-hypersensitivity, in which subjects suffer due to RFR exposure has been described. Typically these people suffer from skin and mucosa related symptoms (itching, smarting, pain, heat sensation), or heart and nervous system disorders after exposure to computer monitors, cell phones and other electromagnetic devices. This malady is growing continuously: starting from 0.06% of the total population in 1985 this category now includes as much as 9-11% of the European population.

“A number of experimental studies demonstrate metabolic effects induced by low intensity RFR. Notwithstanding the non-ionizing nature of RFR, profound mutagenic effects and features of significant oxidative stress in living cells under low
intensity RFR exposure were detected using various biological models. Some of the papers however still show an absence of  biological effects. To clarify the picture, we analyzed peer-reviewed publications on oxidative effects of RFR and found
altogether 80 currently available papers, of which a remarkable part, 76 papers (92.5%), reported the detection of significant oxidative stress. These effects most often included overproduction of ROS, lipid peroxidation/increased concentrations of malondialde-hyde, protein peroxidation, increased concentrations of nitric oxide (NO) and changes in the   activity of antioxidant enzymes. Some papers point to the role of particular ROS and the ROS related pathways.

“Whatever the particular first-step molecular mechanisms, it is clear that the substantial overproduction of ROS in living cells under low intensity RFR exposure could cause a broad spectrum of health disorders and diseases, including cancer in humans. Undoubtedly, this calls for the further intensive research in the area, as well as to a precautionary approach in routine usage of wireless devices.”(1)

Cite:
(1) http://www.scopemed.org/fulltextpdf.php?mno=154583

Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, An Introduction Programming Manual was uncovered quite by accident on July 7, 1986 when an employee of Boeing Aircraft Co. purchased a surplus IBM copier for scrap parts at a sale, and discovered inside details of a plan, hatched in the embryonic days of the “Cold War” which called for control of the masses through manipulation of industry, peoples’ pastimes, education and political leanings. It called for a quiet revolution, putting brother against brother,
and diverting the public’s attention from what is really going on.

Some quotes from the text:

“It is patently impossible to discuss social engineering or the automation of a society, i.e., the engineering of social automation systems (silent weapons) on a national or worldwide scale without implying extensive objectives of social control and destruction of human life, i.e., slavery and genocide. This manual is in itself an analog declaration of intent. Such a writing must be secured from public scrutiny. Otherwise, it might be recognized as a technically formal declaration of domestic war. Furthermore, whenever any person or group of persons in a position of great power and without full knowledge and consent of the public, uses such knowledge and methodologies for economic conquest – it must be understood that a state of domestic warfare exists between said person or group of persons and the public.

“You have qualified for this project because of your ability to look at human society with cold objectivity, and yet analyze and discuss your observations and conclusions with others of similar intellectual capacity without the loss of discretion or humility. Such virtues are exercised in your own best interest. Do not deviate from them.

“In 1954 it was well recognized by those in positions of authority that it was only a matter of time, only a few decades, before the general public would be able to grasp and upset the cradle of power, for the very elements of the new silent weapon technology were as accessible for a public utopia as they were for providing a private utopia.

“All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?

“Consequently, in the interest of future world order, peace, and tranquility, it was decided to privately wage a quiet war
against the American public with an ultimate objective of permanently shifting the natural and social energy (wealth) of the undisciplined and irresponsible many into the hands of the self-disciplined, responsible, and worthy few. In order to implement this objective, it was necessary to create, secure, and apply new weapons which, as it turned out, were a class
of weapons so subtle and sophisticated in their principle of operation and public appearance as to earn for themselves the name “silent weapons”.”(1)

Short video by Deborah Taveres on the Silent Weapons System:

A reading of the document Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars:

Cite-(Read More)

(1)A link to the document Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars:

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars