IS THIS WHY SO MANY OF US CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT WE CAME IN TO THE SUPERMARKETY FOR
Raleigh, N.C. - Building air ducts can help boost cellphone and Wi-Fi signals in stores, helping retailers expand their mobile marketing efforts..
Research at North Carolina State University shows that the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning ducts (HVAC) that snake through commercial real estate act as natural signal boosters that can help eliminate dead spots in stores.
This would be a boon to retailers like Best Buy and Target, which are rolling out mobile-marketing programs that send coupons, sales alerts and product information to shopper's cell phones.
According to a report in Storefront Backtalk, an industry newsletter, the researchers found that HVAC ductwork is an excellent conduit for cell tower transmissions because the ducts typically consist of hollow metal pipes. The group was originally searching for ways to boost RFID signals in stores.
Retailers would still require a microcell repeater to grab and strengthen the cell signals, although the ducts themselves would act as distributed antennae, said Dr. Dan Stancil, chairman of the university's electrical and computer engineering department.
"The ducts will increase the range in a very different way, meaning that you can cover Wi-Fi with far fewer access points," he said.
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Monday, 23 August 2010
Dr. Samuel Milham was the first scientist to alert the world that exposure to electromagnetic fields can cause disease. His new book, Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization, documents Dr. Milham’s early years and education, and describes his discovery of the link between electromagnetic field exposure and most of the twentieth century diseases of civilization, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and suicide.
In Dirty Electricity, Dr. Milham discusses the recent proliferation of radio frequency radiation from cell phones and towers, terrestrial antennas, Wi-Fi and Wi-max systems, broadband internet over power lines, and personal electronic equipment and warns of the epidemic of disease and mortality that we may soon face because of these technologies. These technologies, he explains, are creating the 2nd wave of illnesses from electromagnetic fields, the first being from electrification beginning in the early part of the 20th century and only recently discovered thanks to Dr. Milham’s work.
Dr. Milham says the ‘War on Cancer’ has been a failure because “people have missed the major carcinogen”. He has tried to get the attention of several government agencies, as well as the marines, as to the role that electromagnetic fields–and in particular ‘dirty electricity’ –have played in the illnesses of our times, to no avail. Thus, he has written “Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization” to bring the key learnings of his career to the public. A winner of the Ramazzini prize for his pioneering work in the occupational risks for cancer from electromagnetic fields, Dr. Milham has long been on the forefront of understanding biological effects from electromagnetic fields. After recently doing pioneering work linking cancer clusters in schools to Dirty Electricity, he is now especially concerned about a cluster of Boeing workers with Lou Gehrig’s disease and would like to study the electromagnetic environment there but so far has not been granted access. He also says that Gulf War Syndrome may have an important electromagnetic component, and that military health issues blamed on things like water quality in certain instances may in fact be electromagnetic in nature, such as from extensive portable air conditioning for soldiers in the Middle East.
ElectromagneticHealth.org’s interview with Dr. Milham begins with a discussion of the very low incidence of many diseases among one sect of the Amish that uses no electricity whatsoever, and his finding that doctors there report no ADHD in children. Another very interesting learning from this interview is that EMF risk from cell towers is not only from the radiation (RF) being emitted (i.e. the microwave radiation), but from the dirty electricity the operation of the tower puts onto the electrical system in the neighborhood, suggesting anyone who lives near a tower might be well advised to check the level of Dirty Electricity with a Graham Stetzer meter, developed by Dr. Martin Graham, Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, and Dave Stetzer of Stetzer Electric. Graham Stetzer meters to measure Dirty Electricity, and filters to address the problem (capacitors), can be found at www.EMFSafetyStore.com.
Dr. Milham says, “Government has really failed. It has let the people down.” As one additional example of this Milham says, “Why on earth would governments allow cell towers to be put on school grounds?”
Are our minds being altered by the ever increasing see of radio waves we live in?
Every 50 years or so, American magazine the Atlantic lobs an intellectual grenade into our culture. In the summer of 1945, for example, it published an essay by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) engineer Vannevar Bush entitled "As We May Think". It turned out to be the blueprint for what eventually emerged as the world wide web. Two summers ago, the Atlantic published an essay by Nicholas Carr, one of the blogosphere's most prominent (and thoughtful) contrarians
"Over the past few years," Carr wrote, "I've had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn't going – so far as I can tell – but it's changing. I'm not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I'm reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument and I'd spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That's rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I'm always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle."
It's not rocket science our brains are living in a totally alien see of microwaves of course we can't think the way God designed us to!!
Friday, 20 August 2010
In its latest publication ARCEP-FRANCE (Regulatory Authority Electronic Communications and Postal) mentions a very significant fact: after falling for several years, the volume of minutes used on landline telephones has recently increased spectacularly and now exceeds the minutes used by mobile phones. The respective figures show traffic of 25.5 billion minutes for mobile phones, which is the same figure as the first quarter of 2009, thus a stagnation "after years of non-stop expansion". In contrast, during the same period “the total volume of traffic for landline phones reached 30.7 billion minutes in the first quarter of 2010, a level which it had not reached since almost 10 years ago,” declared ARCEP.
Some people explain this by the economic crisis (are parents keeping a closer eye on the phone bills?), others see the dawning realisation that using a mobile phone carries a health risk. Whatever the reason, against all expectation the landline phone is gaining ground in a surprising way against the mobile.
Paradoxically average yearly revenues remain the same, in spite of the ingenuity and multiplicity of new offers from the phone companies. An ex-fan of the mobile phone…
The golden age of an investment return in double figures from mobile telephony is now in the past, and the poor return on the mobile videophone (3G, etc,) is a bitter pill for the phone companies. Whether due to the economic climate or not, the PMT (Personal Mobile Television), which the operators were so keen on and was supported by the authorities, backed up by offers from the manufacturers, has turned out to be a flop. The truth is that there is a widespread falling off of demand, especially in the northern countries, for mobile phone time. Is this a first sign of salvation for the southern European countries? [Report ABI research]
For the time being the phone companies’ revenues are still being boosted in the developing countries, particularly in Africa which is a truly limitless Eldorado, with its favourable geopolitical conditions and a public that has no awareness of any health risks. Considering the poverty in some African countries it’s even indecent, yet it is entirely possible that, in the face of the phone companies’ aggressive marketing and business methods, the demand for mobile phones will literally explode.
But beware and prepare for tomorrow, for the tide may well turn.
- Authority:
Some people explain this by the economic crisis (are parents keeping a closer eye on the phone bills?), others see the dawning realisation that using a mobile phone carries a health risk. Whatever the reason, against all expectation the landline phone is gaining ground in a surprising way against the mobile.
Paradoxically average yearly revenues remain the same, in spite of the ingenuity and multiplicity of new offers from the phone companies. An ex-fan of the mobile phone…
The golden age of an investment return in double figures from mobile telephony is now in the past, and the poor return on the mobile videophone (3G, etc,) is a bitter pill for the phone companies. Whether due to the economic climate or not, the PMT (Personal Mobile Television), which the operators were so keen on and was supported by the authorities, backed up by offers from the manufacturers, has turned out to be a flop. The truth is that there is a widespread falling off of demand, especially in the northern countries, for mobile phone time. Is this a first sign of salvation for the southern European countries? [Report ABI research]
For the time being the phone companies’ revenues are still being boosted in the developing countries, particularly in Africa which is a truly limitless Eldorado, with its favourable geopolitical conditions and a public that has no awareness of any health risks. Considering the poverty in some African countries it’s even indecent, yet it is entirely possible that, in the face of the phone companies’ aggressive marketing and business methods, the demand for mobile phones will literally explode.
But beware and prepare for tomorrow, for the tide may well turn.
- Authority:
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
A LETTER TO CONGRESS
Dear Mr. Martin:
I write in reference to the Federal Communication Commission's vote on the authorization of
new unlicensed "White Spaces" devices for wireless communications in the TV Broadcast
Bands, scheduled for its November 4th meeting. FCC adoption of rules to authorize use of White
Spaces spectrum for wireless devices operating in the home will lead to the repeated, chronic,
long-term exposure of individuals, at all age levels, and to more frequencies and quantities of
radiofrequency (RF) radiation at very close range than is currently the case. Whether these
exposures pose human health risks is under investigation by members of the scientific and public
health research communities. I am writing to remind FCC to consider the potential for serious
human health effects that could result from the proliferation of these devices in the home, before
allowing the proliferation of such devices.
By design, the White Spaces devices rule will increase the bandwidth available for wireless
devices operating at close range, for general use in the home and elsewhere. As a result, it is
expected that the number of transmitters in the broadcast frequency range will increase
exponentially with the roll out of White Spaces devices and infrastructure. The Commission has
classified unlicensed broadband White Spaces devices to be used in the TV bands into two
general functional categories. The first category consists of lower power "personal/ portable"
unlicensed devices, such as Wi-Fi cards in laptop computers or wireless in-home local area
networks (LANs). The second category consists of higher power "fixed/access" unlicensed
devices that are generally operated from a fixed location and may be used to provide a
commercial service such as wireless broadband Internet access. Whereas high-powered analog
broadcast transmitter sites have traditionally been found at locations somewhat removed from
business centers and residential neighborhoods, the new White Spaces devices that will also
transmit in the digital broadcast frequencies are designed to operate at close range to members of
Mr. Kevin J. Martin
November 3,2008
,Page2
the public who choose to use them as well as to their colleagues and neighbors who may choose
not to use them.
This proliferation of RF exposure follows the September 25,2008 hearing before the
Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on
"Tumors and Cell Phone Use-'What the Science Says," at which witnesses raised serious
concems about the potential public health implications of RF exposures through cell phones.
Some specific concerns were raised about FCC RF radiation exposure limits. Namely, they may
not be adequate to protect humans from adverse biological effects; may not provide protection
from long-term exposure; are only based on tissue heating reactions on a non-representative
sample of the total population (a six-feet tall male); do not address the current state of scientif,rc
research establishing non-thermal biological effects; and do not err on the side of precaution.
While RF exposures from cell phones are different than the RF exposures that will be
generated through the White Spaces auction, there is much that is unknown about the health
effects of these exposures that corresponds with concerns raised in the hearing. In its 2005 Fact
Sheet entitled, "Studies on Radiofrequency Radiation Emitted by Cellular Phones," the National
Toxicology Program (NTP) at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences states:
Over 100 million Americans curuently use wireless communication devices with over 50
thousand new users daily. This translates into a potentially significant public health
problem should the use ofthese devices even slightly increase the risk ofadverse health
effects. Cellular phones and other wireless communication devices are required to meet
the radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure guidelines of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC, August 1996). The existing exposure guidelines are based on
protectionfrom acute injuryfrom thermal fficts of RFR exposure. Cunent datq are
insfficient to draw definitive conclusions concerning the adequacy of these guidelines to
be protective against any non-thermal fficts of chronic exposures.
In January 2008 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report entitled:
Identification of Research Needs Relating to Potential Biological or Adverse Health Effects of
Wireless Communication Devices. The following excerpts from the NAS Report support the
NTP's conclusion that the research record upon which FCC's RF Safety Guidelines are based
does not adequately safeguard the public from non-thermal chronic exposures:
Research Needs
l. There is a need to characterize exposure ofjuveniles, children, pregnant women,
andfetuses, bothfor personal wireless devices (e.g., cell phones, wireless
personal computers, tPcsl) and for RF fields from base station antennqs
including gradients and variability of exposures, the environment in which
devices are used, and exposures from other sources, multilateral exposures, and
multiple frequencies.
Mr. Kevin J. Martin
November 3, 2008
Page 3
2. Wireless networlcs are being built very rapidly, and many more base station
antennas are being installed. A crucial research need is to characterize radiated
electromagnetic fields for typical multiple-element bqse station antennas andfor
the highest radiated power conditions with measurements conducted during peak
hours of the day at locations close to the antennas as well as at ground level . . .
3. The use of evolving types of antennas for hand-held cell phones and text
messaging devices need to be characterizedfor the Specffic Absorption Rates
(SARÐ that they deliver to dffirent parts of the body so that this data is available
for use infuture epidemiologic studies.
4. RF exposure of the operational personnel close to multi-element newer base
station antennas is unlcnown and could be high, These exposures need to be
characterized. Also needed are dosimetric absorbed power calculations using
realistic anatomic models for both men and women of dffirent heights.
(P.s)
Most of the reported studies to date have involved one base station antenna and
have used mostly homogeneous models, often of simplified circular or rectangular
cross sections of the exposed human . . . In other words, the studies to date do not
pertain to the commonly used multiple-element base station radiators. Also,
unlike highly localized cell phone RF energt deposition, the base station
exposures involve much, if not all, of the body and would have slightly dffirent
radiator origins (for multiple-element base stqtions) and may be multi-frequency
as well, particularly if several dffirent-frequency base stcttion antennas are colocated.
Furthermore, because of the whole-body resonance phenomenon, the
SIR is likely to be higher for shorter individuals due to the closeness of the
fr e quency/fr e qu enc i e s of exp o s ur e t o the w hol e -b o dy r e s onanc e fr e que ncy.
(P.1s)
FCC has committed detailed and thorough analysis of what this White Spaces technology
might do to cause interference with other commercial uses. I call upon the Commission to match
its concern for commercial interests with concern for human health of the future consumers of
this technology. To that end, I hereby request that the Commission stay its November 4,2008
vote pertaining to "White Spaces" devices. In the interim, I urge you to immediately take
appropriate agency action to consider what RF human exposure guidelines FCC should set to
protect the health and safety of the American public before authorizing this technology to be
licensed or deployed. I also request that the Commission provide my Subcommittee with a
detailed description of the measures FCC has taken to date to ensure public health will not be
jeopardized by the auctioning of the White Spaces spectrum, given the scientific concerns and
unknowns about RF exposure and the proliferation of new RF exposures that will result.
Mr. Kevin J. Martin
November 3, 2008
Page 4
The Oversight and Government Reform Committee is the principal oversight committee in
the House of Representatives and has broad oversight jurisdiction as set forth in House Rule X.
An attachment to this letter provides information on how to respond to the Subcommittee's
request. W'e request that you provide these documents as soon as possible, but in no case later
than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, November 17,2008.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Jaron Bourke, Staff Director,
at (202) 225-6427.
Sincerely,
ù,u^;- ù,\ü^-;cL Dennis J. Kucinich
Chairman
Domestic Policy Subcommittee
Dear Mr. Martin:
I write in reference to the Federal Communication Commission's vote on the authorization of
new unlicensed "White Spaces" devices for wireless communications in the TV Broadcast
Bands, scheduled for its November 4th meeting. FCC adoption of rules to authorize use of White
Spaces spectrum for wireless devices operating in the home will lead to the repeated, chronic,
long-term exposure of individuals, at all age levels, and to more frequencies and quantities of
radiofrequency (RF) radiation at very close range than is currently the case. Whether these
exposures pose human health risks is under investigation by members of the scientific and public
health research communities. I am writing to remind FCC to consider the potential for serious
human health effects that could result from the proliferation of these devices in the home, before
allowing the proliferation of such devices.
By design, the White Spaces devices rule will increase the bandwidth available for wireless
devices operating at close range, for general use in the home and elsewhere. As a result, it is
expected that the number of transmitters in the broadcast frequency range will increase
exponentially with the roll out of White Spaces devices and infrastructure. The Commission has
classified unlicensed broadband White Spaces devices to be used in the TV bands into two
general functional categories. The first category consists of lower power "personal/ portable"
unlicensed devices, such as Wi-Fi cards in laptop computers or wireless in-home local area
networks (LANs). The second category consists of higher power "fixed/access" unlicensed
devices that are generally operated from a fixed location and may be used to provide a
commercial service such as wireless broadband Internet access. Whereas high-powered analog
broadcast transmitter sites have traditionally been found at locations somewhat removed from
business centers and residential neighborhoods, the new White Spaces devices that will also
transmit in the digital broadcast frequencies are designed to operate at close range to members of
Mr. Kevin J. Martin
November 3,2008
,Page2
the public who choose to use them as well as to their colleagues and neighbors who may choose
not to use them.
This proliferation of RF exposure follows the September 25,2008 hearing before the
Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on
"Tumors and Cell Phone Use-'What the Science Says," at which witnesses raised serious
concems about the potential public health implications of RF exposures through cell phones.
Some specific concerns were raised about FCC RF radiation exposure limits. Namely, they may
not be adequate to protect humans from adverse biological effects; may not provide protection
from long-term exposure; are only based on tissue heating reactions on a non-representative
sample of the total population (a six-feet tall male); do not address the current state of scientif,rc
research establishing non-thermal biological effects; and do not err on the side of precaution.
While RF exposures from cell phones are different than the RF exposures that will be
generated through the White Spaces auction, there is much that is unknown about the health
effects of these exposures that corresponds with concerns raised in the hearing. In its 2005 Fact
Sheet entitled, "Studies on Radiofrequency Radiation Emitted by Cellular Phones," the National
Toxicology Program (NTP) at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences states:
Over 100 million Americans curuently use wireless communication devices with over 50
thousand new users daily. This translates into a potentially significant public health
problem should the use ofthese devices even slightly increase the risk ofadverse health
effects. Cellular phones and other wireless communication devices are required to meet
the radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure guidelines of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC, August 1996). The existing exposure guidelines are based on
protectionfrom acute injuryfrom thermal fficts of RFR exposure. Cunent datq are
insfficient to draw definitive conclusions concerning the adequacy of these guidelines to
be protective against any non-thermal fficts of chronic exposures.
In January 2008 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report entitled:
Identification of Research Needs Relating to Potential Biological or Adverse Health Effects of
Wireless Communication Devices. The following excerpts from the NAS Report support the
NTP's conclusion that the research record upon which FCC's RF Safety Guidelines are based
does not adequately safeguard the public from non-thermal chronic exposures:
Research Needs
l. There is a need to characterize exposure ofjuveniles, children, pregnant women,
andfetuses, bothfor personal wireless devices (e.g., cell phones, wireless
personal computers, tPcsl) and for RF fields from base station antennqs
including gradients and variability of exposures, the environment in which
devices are used, and exposures from other sources, multilateral exposures, and
multiple frequencies.
Mr. Kevin J. Martin
November 3, 2008
Page 3
2. Wireless networlcs are being built very rapidly, and many more base station
antennas are being installed. A crucial research need is to characterize radiated
electromagnetic fields for typical multiple-element bqse station antennas andfor
the highest radiated power conditions with measurements conducted during peak
hours of the day at locations close to the antennas as well as at ground level . . .
3. The use of evolving types of antennas for hand-held cell phones and text
messaging devices need to be characterizedfor the Specffic Absorption Rates
(SARÐ that they deliver to dffirent parts of the body so that this data is available
for use infuture epidemiologic studies.
4. RF exposure of the operational personnel close to multi-element newer base
station antennas is unlcnown and could be high, These exposures need to be
characterized. Also needed are dosimetric absorbed power calculations using
realistic anatomic models for both men and women of dffirent heights.
(P.s)
Most of the reported studies to date have involved one base station antenna and
have used mostly homogeneous models, often of simplified circular or rectangular
cross sections of the exposed human . . . In other words, the studies to date do not
pertain to the commonly used multiple-element base station radiators. Also,
unlike highly localized cell phone RF energt deposition, the base station
exposures involve much, if not all, of the body and would have slightly dffirent
radiator origins (for multiple-element base stqtions) and may be multi-frequency
as well, particularly if several dffirent-frequency base stcttion antennas are colocated.
Furthermore, because of the whole-body resonance phenomenon, the
SIR is likely to be higher for shorter individuals due to the closeness of the
fr e quency/fr e qu enc i e s of exp o s ur e t o the w hol e -b o dy r e s onanc e fr e que ncy.
(P.1s)
FCC has committed detailed and thorough analysis of what this White Spaces technology
might do to cause interference with other commercial uses. I call upon the Commission to match
its concern for commercial interests with concern for human health of the future consumers of
this technology. To that end, I hereby request that the Commission stay its November 4,2008
vote pertaining to "White Spaces" devices. In the interim, I urge you to immediately take
appropriate agency action to consider what RF human exposure guidelines FCC should set to
protect the health and safety of the American public before authorizing this technology to be
licensed or deployed. I also request that the Commission provide my Subcommittee with a
detailed description of the measures FCC has taken to date to ensure public health will not be
jeopardized by the auctioning of the White Spaces spectrum, given the scientific concerns and
unknowns about RF exposure and the proliferation of new RF exposures that will result.
Mr. Kevin J. Martin
November 3, 2008
Page 4
The Oversight and Government Reform Committee is the principal oversight committee in
the House of Representatives and has broad oversight jurisdiction as set forth in House Rule X.
An attachment to this letter provides information on how to respond to the Subcommittee's
request. W'e request that you provide these documents as soon as possible, but in no case later
than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, November 17,2008.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Jaron Bourke, Staff Director,
at (202) 225-6427.
Sincerely,
ù,u^;- ù,\ü^-;cL Dennis J. Kucinich
Chairman
Domestic Policy Subcommittee
DECT telephones and mobile phones cause cancer
The Highest Regional Court in Brescia (North Italy) has now issued a final valid judgement confirming a causal connection.
The brain tumor of an employee of the INAIL (IstitutoNazionale by l' Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro) the National Public Insurance Institute, has been caused by hours of use of a cordless(DECT) and/or mobile phone
The judgement is a breakthrough because this time the Judge excluded industry financed appraisals and relied on industry independent data.
This judgement makes it now possible for employees in Italy to insist on the supply of a corded phone and to advise their employer that they are legally liable for future damages should they insist on the use of a cordless phone.
The Consumer Center in South Tirol advises everyone to insist on a written declaration regarding the use of telecommunication equipment which expressly states that the employer takes all responsibility for any future medium or long term consequences
The plaintiff has now been awarded an 80% disability pension due to his ` handy damage' .and the employer INAIL is to pay all court costs.
Thursday, 24 June 2010
In January 2009 the municipality of the Bavarian town of Selbitz, carried out a health survey by which the data of 251 citizens was recorded and then analyzed regarding radiation intensity by microwaves. In a second step, the radiation data was used to stratify the participants in pollution intensity groups, utilizing place of residence and available readings of the regional mobile telephone radiation. The mean radiation measurements of the groups exposed at most in Selbitz (1.2 V/m) was substantially higher than the mean radiation of the study population studied in the QUEBEB study (1) of the German mobile telephone research program (Deutsches Mobilfunkforschungsprogramm DMF, established mean value DMF 0.07 V/m).
A significant correlation was found dependent on dose-effects for insomnia, depressions, cerebral symptoms, joint illnesses, infections, skin changes, heart and circulation disorders, and disorders of the optical and acoustic sensory systems and the gastro-intestinal tract with objectively determined locations of exposure, which can be related by the influence of microwaves on the human nervous system. This work, which has been carried out without external resources, provides a protocol for surveys of medical practitioners and municipality administrations to estimate Wissenschaftlicher Originalbeitrag 2 possible health effects of mobile telephone basic stations situated near population residents.
Specific symptoms and radiation from mobile basis stations in Selbitz, Bavaria, Germany: evidence for a dose-effect relationship
Keywords: symptoms, HF-radiation, dose-effect evidence
A significant correlation was found dependent on dose-effects for insomnia, depressions, cerebral symptoms, joint illnesses, infections, skin changes, heart and circulation disorders, and disorders of the optical and acoustic sensory systems and the gastro-intestinal tract with objectively determined locations of exposure, which can be related by the influence of microwaves on the human nervous system. This work, which has been carried out without external resources, provides a protocol for surveys of medical practitioners and municipality administrations to estimate Wissenschaftlicher Originalbeitrag 2 possible health effects of mobile telephone basic stations situated near population residents.
Specific symptoms and radiation from mobile basis stations in Selbitz, Bavaria, Germany: evidence for a dose-effect relationship
Keywords: symptoms, HF-radiation, dose-effect evidence
Saturday, 27 March 2010
ENVIRONEMENTAL DISEASES: WHEN THE MEDICAL PROFESSION "CAN’T HELP YOU"
My electrosenstivity showed up in late 2004 after a boat trip where I'd spent the day on the deck close to the mobile phone antennas, the radar and GSM probably, and the night also not far from them. It was the straw that broke the camel's back, a journey I made by boat in order not to add to greenhouse gases by taking the plane. I'd already been given a lovely present of a wireless phone on the bedside table, an electric transformer under the bed, mobile phone antennas very close and the terminal of some electrical wiring, to mention only the most powerful sources of electromagnetic radiation.
At the time I could no longer even walk beside a river (the friction of the water molecules releases atoms and creates an electrical field), my legs felt like cotton wool and I felt as if I was going to fall over.
When I was exposed to electromagnetic fields, all sorts of symptoms could appear: inflammation of the thyroid and severe pains (I suffer from the auto-immune Hashimoto's disease); feeling dizzy, falling sensations, poor coordination between brain and legs; sensations of electrocution of the brain followed by suffocation; problems with my metabolism; heart problems, digestive problems; problems with my sight; joint pains; stabbing pains in my muscles; cramps; sleeping problems; exhaustion; being unable to stand stress, heat, noise, light; difficulty in remembering, concentrating and following through my thoughts and speaking; skin conditions; severe pain in the jaws and teeth; depression - to mention only the mentionable ones.
And as if that wasn't enough, whether exposed to EMFs or not, I entered a charmed world: thickening features, falling hair, silhouette like a pink hippopotamus .....
In 2005 I put my health in the hands of the medical profession. When I found out they could do nothing I decided in 2006 to take charge of it myself. My first research foray led me to a forum "L'appart" that specialized in a gluten free and dairy-free diet. This diet did me a lot of good. Later that year an article in the magazine BioContact, distributed free in health shops, put me on the trail of poisoning from dental mercury so criticized by the late and regretted Dr Mellet. In fact I had many amalgam fillings, some of them overlaid with gold crowns. Gold and mercury can easily exchange their electrons, and the galvanization that this caused in my mouth greatly aggravated my numerous symptoms. I only understood this much later when the last crown was removed. . . In December 2006 I realised for sure that I was also electrosensitive when I went to visit one of my children who lived in a high-rise apartment block, on the 16th floor. It was obvious that the 6 relay antennas sited on its roof were very effective in filling the coffers of the Office Public de l'Habitat (formerly the Public Office of Social Housing), to the detriment of the health of its tenants. . In the face of all this I decided to create a healthier environment for myself.
Like many people who are EHS (Electro-Hyper-Sensitive), I had to confine myself in my home, which I'd fitted out with protection from hyperlan radiation (high-speed Internet at 5.4 GHz) and from LF radiation: Faraday cage and shielding of the mains electricity with earthing, among other things. If I chose to leave it, I had to wear garments that protected me against EMFs. In spite of these precautions, every trip resulted in a great deal of pain that was sometimes hardly bearable. If I tried to have some sort of social life I had to turn up with an HF EMF meter so that those present could see with their own eyes that their mobile phones were emitting powerful radiation, and I could hope that they would turn them off. It is worth remembering that Dr Maschi, who was rudely attacked by his colleagues, was already in 1965 warning about the health hazards from artificial electromagnetic wavelengths especially in low frequencies.
During the same period I had my dental fillings and crowns removed and followed a two-year chelation treatment to eliminate the heavy metals.
On the "L'appart" forum I met other people affected by heavy metals and EMFs and we set up another forum specifically for the topic of detoxification from these metals, the forum Melodie (Information and support for heavy metal detoxification)
Through our intense collective efforts we discovered some clues to other therapeutic approaches. One thing was obvious, that our immune systems were very weak, for instance several of us had Lyme's disease.
The most important discovery that our investigations and experiments as "forumers" revealed was probably the work of the American researcher Dr Hulda Clark. She describes how through using an audio oscillator she discovered that the root causes of all illness are environmental pollution and parasites (viruses, bacteria, moulds, amoebas, worms, etc). To restore health she developed a protocol that consists first of all in eliminating all parasites (certain ones block secretions from the organs) and cleaning out the cleansing organs: kidneys, intestines and liver. In fact the fourth liver cleanse removed a quarter litre of gallstones from my liver and cured my electrosenstivity. These cleanses are completely painless and can get rid of gallstones larger than a walnut.
However I still had problems with hypoglycemia and with painful joints, and a severe lack of magnesium. Continuing my research, I discovered that I had chronic candidiasis, a condition described in detail by Dr P-G Besson in his book "Je me sens mal, mais je ne sais pas pourquoi" (I Feel Bad but I Don't Know Why). Eliminating sugar from my diet completed my return to feeling well.
Chinese medicine has established a connection between the Hashimoto thyroid condition and chronic candidiasis. This system attributes auto-immune diseases to chronic candidiasis, since Candida albicans perforates the intestinal walls in order to feed itself from the lymph and the blood. I cherish the hope that eventually, once the Candida albicans has regained its place as common yeast, I will be able to say goodbye to my Hashimoto thyroid condition, which is supposedly incurable. In my case my thyroid, thanks to my gluten- and dairy-free diet (see the work of Dr Seignalet, "L'alimentation ou la troisième médecine" (Nutrition or the Third Type of Medicine) has not changed much and my antibodies are steadily decreasing. After several years of this condition this gland often just about disappears.
After thinking about this painful history and at its almost miraculous outcome, this is my understanding of the facts. This is just a hypothesis, mostly inspired by the work of Dr Hulda Clark. . Candida albicans is electrosensitive, so artificial electromagnetic fields constitute a stress for it. When I seat myself in front of my computer screen I soon start feeling itches in my back, one of the symptoms of chronic candidiasis. . It is a mould and therefore produces substances that are poisonous for the human body, feeding almost exclusively on sugar. Before the fourth cleanse my liver could no longer eliminate these substances. Dr Clark's theory was that the gallstones compress the cavities in the liver that detoxify the organism. Once these cavities that eliminate the Candida toxins had been unclogged by the fourth cleanse, my liver was once again capable of doing its cleaning job.
In a similar way, Dr Clark points out that the "universal allergy", that is to say chemosensitivity, can be cured by cleansing the liver of its numerous gallstones. It is a fact that 75% of people who are chemosensitive are also electrosensitive.
To treat chronic candidiasis it is essential to rebalance the ph of the body (since fungus grows in an acid environment) and to starve the Candida albicans to death by following a diet without any added sugar. This can take up to a year, and afterwards a strict diet must be adhered to. The growth of Candida is stimulated by, among other things, antibiotics, cortisone, chemotherapy, vaccines and fast foods, and by the pollution of the body by heavy metals and electromagnetic fields. In fact the graphs that indicate mercury poisoning, EMF pollution, Lyme's disease and chronic candidiasis are all more or less the same.
Unfortunately doctors do not receive nay training in environmental diseases. As soon as they come up against one of them they readily label it "psychosomatic" - it makes things so much easier! Tomorrow they'll tell us it's "genetic" but that won't make the diseases any better.
So when will they stop just trying to suppress symptoms, and take an interest in finding the cause of our diseases: pollution and parasites, poor eating habits, ineffective cleansing organs or whatever? .
Without the Internet and the Melodie forum [Fr], it would have been impossible for me to treat myself successfully.
Marie-Christine
My electrosenstivity showed up in late 2004 after a boat trip where I'd spent the day on the deck close to the mobile phone antennas, the radar and GSM probably, and the night also not far from them. It was the straw that broke the camel's back, a journey I made by boat in order not to add to greenhouse gases by taking the plane. I'd already been given a lovely present of a wireless phone on the bedside table, an electric transformer under the bed, mobile phone antennas very close and the terminal of some electrical wiring, to mention only the most powerful sources of electromagnetic radiation.
At the time I could no longer even walk beside a river (the friction of the water molecules releases atoms and creates an electrical field), my legs felt like cotton wool and I felt as if I was going to fall over.
When I was exposed to electromagnetic fields, all sorts of symptoms could appear: inflammation of the thyroid and severe pains (I suffer from the auto-immune Hashimoto's disease); feeling dizzy, falling sensations, poor coordination between brain and legs; sensations of electrocution of the brain followed by suffocation; problems with my metabolism; heart problems, digestive problems; problems with my sight; joint pains; stabbing pains in my muscles; cramps; sleeping problems; exhaustion; being unable to stand stress, heat, noise, light; difficulty in remembering, concentrating and following through my thoughts and speaking; skin conditions; severe pain in the jaws and teeth; depression - to mention only the mentionable ones.
And as if that wasn't enough, whether exposed to EMFs or not, I entered a charmed world: thickening features, falling hair, silhouette like a pink hippopotamus .....
In 2005 I put my health in the hands of the medical profession. When I found out they could do nothing I decided in 2006 to take charge of it myself. My first research foray led me to a forum "L'appart" that specialized in a gluten free and dairy-free diet. This diet did me a lot of good. Later that year an article in the magazine BioContact, distributed free in health shops, put me on the trail of poisoning from dental mercury so criticized by the late and regretted Dr Mellet. In fact I had many amalgam fillings, some of them overlaid with gold crowns. Gold and mercury can easily exchange their electrons, and the galvanization that this caused in my mouth greatly aggravated my numerous symptoms. I only understood this much later when the last crown was removed. . . In December 2006 I realised for sure that I was also electrosensitive when I went to visit one of my children who lived in a high-rise apartment block, on the 16th floor. It was obvious that the 6 relay antennas sited on its roof were very effective in filling the coffers of the Office Public de l'Habitat (formerly the Public Office of Social Housing), to the detriment of the health of its tenants. . In the face of all this I decided to create a healthier environment for myself.
Like many people who are EHS (Electro-Hyper-Sensitive), I had to confine myself in my home, which I'd fitted out with protection from hyperlan radiation (high-speed Internet at 5.4 GHz) and from LF radiation: Faraday cage and shielding of the mains electricity with earthing, among other things. If I chose to leave it, I had to wear garments that protected me against EMFs. In spite of these precautions, every trip resulted in a great deal of pain that was sometimes hardly bearable. If I tried to have some sort of social life I had to turn up with an HF EMF meter so that those present could see with their own eyes that their mobile phones were emitting powerful radiation, and I could hope that they would turn them off. It is worth remembering that Dr Maschi, who was rudely attacked by his colleagues, was already in 1965 warning about the health hazards from artificial electromagnetic wavelengths especially in low frequencies.
During the same period I had my dental fillings and crowns removed and followed a two-year chelation treatment to eliminate the heavy metals.
On the "L'appart" forum I met other people affected by heavy metals and EMFs and we set up another forum specifically for the topic of detoxification from these metals, the forum Melodie (Information and support for heavy metal detoxification)
Through our intense collective efforts we discovered some clues to other therapeutic approaches. One thing was obvious, that our immune systems were very weak, for instance several of us had Lyme's disease.
The most important discovery that our investigations and experiments as "forumers" revealed was probably the work of the American researcher Dr Hulda Clark. She describes how through using an audio oscillator she discovered that the root causes of all illness are environmental pollution and parasites (viruses, bacteria, moulds, amoebas, worms, etc). To restore health she developed a protocol that consists first of all in eliminating all parasites (certain ones block secretions from the organs) and cleaning out the cleansing organs: kidneys, intestines and liver. In fact the fourth liver cleanse removed a quarter litre of gallstones from my liver and cured my electrosenstivity. These cleanses are completely painless and can get rid of gallstones larger than a walnut.
However I still had problems with hypoglycemia and with painful joints, and a severe lack of magnesium. Continuing my research, I discovered that I had chronic candidiasis, a condition described in detail by Dr P-G Besson in his book "Je me sens mal, mais je ne sais pas pourquoi" (I Feel Bad but I Don't Know Why). Eliminating sugar from my diet completed my return to feeling well.
Chinese medicine has established a connection between the Hashimoto thyroid condition and chronic candidiasis. This system attributes auto-immune diseases to chronic candidiasis, since Candida albicans perforates the intestinal walls in order to feed itself from the lymph and the blood. I cherish the hope that eventually, once the Candida albicans has regained its place as common yeast, I will be able to say goodbye to my Hashimoto thyroid condition, which is supposedly incurable. In my case my thyroid, thanks to my gluten- and dairy-free diet (see the work of Dr Seignalet, "L'alimentation ou la troisième médecine" (Nutrition or the Third Type of Medicine) has not changed much and my antibodies are steadily decreasing. After several years of this condition this gland often just about disappears.
After thinking about this painful history and at its almost miraculous outcome, this is my understanding of the facts. This is just a hypothesis, mostly inspired by the work of Dr Hulda Clark. . Candida albicans is electrosensitive, so artificial electromagnetic fields constitute a stress for it. When I seat myself in front of my computer screen I soon start feeling itches in my back, one of the symptoms of chronic candidiasis. . It is a mould and therefore produces substances that are poisonous for the human body, feeding almost exclusively on sugar. Before the fourth cleanse my liver could no longer eliminate these substances. Dr Clark's theory was that the gallstones compress the cavities in the liver that detoxify the organism. Once these cavities that eliminate the Candida toxins had been unclogged by the fourth cleanse, my liver was once again capable of doing its cleaning job.
In a similar way, Dr Clark points out that the "universal allergy", that is to say chemosensitivity, can be cured by cleansing the liver of its numerous gallstones. It is a fact that 75% of people who are chemosensitive are also electrosensitive.
To treat chronic candidiasis it is essential to rebalance the ph of the body (since fungus grows in an acid environment) and to starve the Candida albicans to death by following a diet without any added sugar. This can take up to a year, and afterwards a strict diet must be adhered to. The growth of Candida is stimulated by, among other things, antibiotics, cortisone, chemotherapy, vaccines and fast foods, and by the pollution of the body by heavy metals and electromagnetic fields. In fact the graphs that indicate mercury poisoning, EMF pollution, Lyme's disease and chronic candidiasis are all more or less the same.
Unfortunately doctors do not receive nay training in environmental diseases. As soon as they come up against one of them they readily label it "psychosomatic" - it makes things so much easier! Tomorrow they'll tell us it's "genetic" but that won't make the diseases any better.
So when will they stop just trying to suppress symptoms, and take an interest in finding the cause of our diseases: pollution and parasites, poor eating habits, ineffective cleansing organs or whatever? .
Without the Internet and the Melodie forum [Fr], it would have been impossible for me to treat myself successfully.
Marie-Christine
Friday, 5 March 2010
ME now known as CFS, originally Yuppy Flu was its first name so called due to sufferers being early mobile phone users CFS symptoms and ES are closely linked. Why can't the Medics connect on this are we all turning into robots!
Thursday
4 March 2010
Editor's Choice
Let’s proceed with caution
Fiona Godlee, editor, BMJ
fgodlee@bmj.com
The lively response to last month’s editorial on chronic fatigue syndrome (BMJ 2010;340:c738, doi:10.1136/bmj.c738) brings home the inadequacy of our current understanding of this condition, or group of conditions. The responses from patients, carers, and clinicians remind us that we remain largely in the dark about its causes and prognosis, there are no accepted diagnostic tests, and treatment options are limited (www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/340/feb11_1/c738). Sufferers must also deal with social and (if they are doctors) professional stigmatisation, as dermatologist Stephanie Munn experienced (doi:10.1136/bmj.c1179).
Little wonder if many who live or work with chronic fatigue syndrome leapt at the news last October that scientists in Nevada had found a "highly significant association" between the condition and a newly discovered retrovirus, xenotropic murine leukaemia virus-related virus (XMRV). The case-control study published in Science was trumpeted, especially by the authors, as having found the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome, with promises of a diagnostic test and treatments to follow.
As an epidemiologist, Cathie Sudlow’s initial response was sceptical, quickly confirmed when she saw that the paper lacked basic methodological information (doi:10.1136/bmj.c1260). "Where were the details of the characteristics and selection procedures for the cases and controls, or of blinding of researchers to the case-control status of the samples? Where was the discussion of the potential role of bias and confounding?"
She and others sent electronic letters to the journal. Four months on, these have yet to appear. Meanwhile, and sadly for those whose hopes had been raised, the study has been refuted by three further case-control studies, one of them in the BMJ (doi:10.1136/bmj.c1018). Myra McClure and Simon Wessely point out that claims of association between retroviruses and diseases often fail to withstand the test of time (doi:10.1136/bmj.c1099).
The paper by Van Kuppeveld and colleagues is an unusual paper for the BMJ to publish. As our research highlights page explains, we would usually reject a small case-control study examining the prevalence of a virus in 20 year old blood samples. Instead we fast tracked it. We did this because it’s about an important and debilitating syndrome that’s often seen by generalists and because we felt it added to an important and highly controversial debate. We and our reviewers also thought it was well done.
So yes, let’s have more research into chronic fatigue syndrome, but let’s make sure it’s good enough research.
We’re all under pressure to innovate, so we need to ensure as far as possible that innovation brings improvement. This may not be the case with the new edition of America’s (and hence the world’s) Diagnostic Criteria for Psychiatric Disorders. Three years in the drafting, DSM-V is now out for consultation with a view to publication in 2013.
Our editorialist cries caution (doi:10.1136/bmj.c1168). DSM-IV was unwittingly responsible, says Allen Frances, for three "epidemics" of overdiagnosis. Rates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, and childhood bipolar disorders shot up when it was published, fuelled not only by DSM-IVs more inclusive diagnostic criteria but by zealous marketing of drugs to doctors and the public.
Now DSM-V threatens worse. It widens the criteria for several existing diagnoses and creates five new ones: binge eating, mixed anxiety depression, minor neurocognitive problems, risk of psychosis, and temper dysregulation. This could "expand the territory of mental disorder and thin the ranks of the normal," exposing vast numbers of new "patients" to avoidable harm.
Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c1266
Thursday
4 March 2010
Editor's Choice
Let’s proceed with caution
Fiona Godlee, editor, BMJ
fgodlee@bmj.com
The lively response to last month’s editorial on chronic fatigue syndrome (BMJ 2010;340:c738, doi:10.1136/bmj.c738) brings home the inadequacy of our current understanding of this condition, or group of conditions. The responses from patients, carers, and clinicians remind us that we remain largely in the dark about its causes and prognosis, there are no accepted diagnostic tests, and treatment options are limited (www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/340/feb11_1/c738). Sufferers must also deal with social and (if they are doctors) professional stigmatisation, as dermatologist Stephanie Munn experienced (doi:10.1136/bmj.c1179).
Little wonder if many who live or work with chronic fatigue syndrome leapt at the news last October that scientists in Nevada had found a "highly significant association" between the condition and a newly discovered retrovirus, xenotropic murine leukaemia virus-related virus (XMRV). The case-control study published in Science was trumpeted, especially by the authors, as having found the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome, with promises of a diagnostic test and treatments to follow.
As an epidemiologist, Cathie Sudlow’s initial response was sceptical, quickly confirmed when she saw that the paper lacked basic methodological information (doi:10.1136/bmj.c1260). "Where were the details of the characteristics and selection procedures for the cases and controls, or of blinding of researchers to the case-control status of the samples? Where was the discussion of the potential role of bias and confounding?"
She and others sent electronic letters to the journal. Four months on, these have yet to appear. Meanwhile, and sadly for those whose hopes had been raised, the study has been refuted by three further case-control studies, one of them in the BMJ (doi:10.1136/bmj.c1018). Myra McClure and Simon Wessely point out that claims of association between retroviruses and diseases often fail to withstand the test of time (doi:10.1136/bmj.c1099).
The paper by Van Kuppeveld and colleagues is an unusual paper for the BMJ to publish. As our research highlights page explains, we would usually reject a small case-control study examining the prevalence of a virus in 20 year old blood samples. Instead we fast tracked it. We did this because it’s about an important and debilitating syndrome that’s often seen by generalists and because we felt it added to an important and highly controversial debate. We and our reviewers also thought it was well done.
So yes, let’s have more research into chronic fatigue syndrome, but let’s make sure it’s good enough research.
We’re all under pressure to innovate, so we need to ensure as far as possible that innovation brings improvement. This may not be the case with the new edition of America’s (and hence the world’s) Diagnostic Criteria for Psychiatric Disorders. Three years in the drafting, DSM-V is now out for consultation with a view to publication in 2013.
Our editorialist cries caution (doi:10.1136/bmj.c1168). DSM-IV was unwittingly responsible, says Allen Frances, for three "epidemics" of overdiagnosis. Rates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, and childhood bipolar disorders shot up when it was published, fuelled not only by DSM-IVs more inclusive diagnostic criteria but by zealous marketing of drugs to doctors and the public.
Now DSM-V threatens worse. It widens the criteria for several existing diagnoses and creates five new ones: binge eating, mixed anxiety depression, minor neurocognitive problems, risk of psychosis, and temper dysregulation. This could "expand the territory of mental disorder and thin the ranks of the normal," exposing vast numbers of new "patients" to avoidable harm.
Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c1266
Monday, 1 March 2010
Are We Expecting Too Much of Ofcom?
Extract from Ofcom’s official website: What is Ofcom? Ofcom is the communications regulator. We regulate the TV and radio sectors, fixed line telecoms and mobiles, plus the airwaves over which wireless devices operate.
We make sure that people in the UK get the best from their communications services and are protected from scams and sharp practices, while ensuring that competition can thrive. Ofcom operates under the Communications Act 2003. This detailed Act of Parliament spells out exactly what Ofcom should do. The Act says that Ofcom’s general duties should be to further the interests of citizens and of consumers. Meeting these two duties is at the heart of everything we do. Accountable to Parliament, we are involved in advising and setting some of the more technical aspects of policy, implementing and enforcing the law. Independent of Government, our decisions and advice are not swayed by party politics, which allows us to act solely in the interest of citizens and consumers.
http://www.Ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/3Glicences/3Glicences/
1.8 We are asking stakeholders to consider the following questions when responding to this consultation:
Are there any reasonable grounds why Ofcom should not grant the request to vary the five Wireless Telegraphy Third Generation Mobile Licences by increasing the permitted maximum in-band EIRP to 68dBm as soon as practicable? If so, please explain your reasoning for this.
Are there any reasonable grounds why Ofcom should not also apply the increased permitted maximum in-band EIRP to future 2 GHz MSS/CGC licences? If so, please explain your reasoning for this.
Such a request for information seems like a straightforward, honourable and reasonable position to take. Participation by ‘stakeholders’ - those who have something to gain or lose, is granted to all comers, for free. On the face of it, the consultative processes may seem like democracy in action.
But there is another interpretation: Yet more of our ‘inalienable’ right to unpolluted living space is about to be taken from us, and those with the power to do it are granting us the opportunity to express our opinion, to ‘get it off our chest’, as it were.
There are a number of reasons why consultation ‘rights’ might be granted:
• It makes the organisation asking appear fair and reasonable.
• It defuses opposition and protest.
• It divides and conquers (views flow into organisations, decisions flow out).
• It allows people with little or no power to believe they have some influence.
• It allows a gullible public to believe their rights are being treated with respect.
• It allows the recipients to ‘weigh the evidence’ according to their criteria.
The organisation offering the ‘consultation’ naturally cannot promise any particular action in response to concerns expressed as they do not know in advance what those views will be. They are nevertheless often the sole arbiter of which views are represented and what weight is given to them - they also control what data is published and when.
• The consultative process relies on those being consulted believing that their views may have a beneficial influence.
• Consultation takes the anger, force and motivation out of opposition. It provides a wall against which to throw sand.
• It provides insight into detail, strength of feeling and likely opposition.
• It buys time during which implementation plans can be fine-tuned to minimize the cost of adverse reactions.
• It provides apparent legitimacy for the chosen course of action.
Anything you get for free has got to be of questionable value. Being given the opportunity to express ones views, to defend one’s rights, by those who have the power to remove them, is a free opportunity that does not come without cost. After a suitable delay, expect a statement to the effect of: “All stakeholders have been given the opportunity to express their views and all submissions received by the deadline have been considered.”
Freely handing over one’s thoughts is a matter of trust. For many, Ofcom, particularly by its continued slavish adherence to the ICNIRP standard and its enthusiastic support for digital roll-outs, has failed to demonstrate that it is an official branch of this government that warrants the trust of those made ill by the technologies they promote.
Submissions which fall broadly in favour of the published plan may suggest additional business opportunities and will surely point to advantages of the plan which may be promoted to those less convinced by its benefits. Submissions broadly against the plan allow arguments to be identified and counter-arguments to be developed, disseminated and practiced.
Ofcom are not there to protect the public’s health. There is nothing in their statement about safety and deciding on ‘citizen’s best interests’ covers a multitude of sins. Delivering willing and reassured consumers to the incredibly powerful and influential telecommunications industry seems a plausible explanation. But why should such an outrageous thing be allowed to happen, especially regardless of the consequences suffered by some people? Never mind the billions of pounds/dollars/euros/yen that smooth the process, Governments cannot achieve sufficient intelligence information to counter terrorism without the support of the telecommunications companies. Our collective security is unfortunately now dependent on a dangerous and unequal alliance between Government and Very Very Big Business.
But people will say things like:
“If we don’t tell Ofcom our views when they do ask, how will they know what we want? Ofcom will say we don’t care and go ahead anyway.”
What is the point of telling Ofcom our views if we are not convinced Ofcom or the Governments ‘technology partners’ will not simply use our input to legitimize their actions? Is the mobile mast power upgrade a ‘done-deal’ and is public consultation merely ‘window dressing’? Why should the disenfranchised have any influence now when they have had precious little before?
If these words are representative of wider feelings, they may resonate with EMF Refugees across the world. Perhaps others will be inspired to share their otherwise private submissions with a wider and perhaps more receptive audience.
Does Ofcom deserve our respect and trust? Do we believe in its objectives? Do we support what it says it stands for? Do we feel our elected officials and unelected representatives who nonetheless speak and act on our behalf and with our authority, do we believe them to be smart, well-informed and influential enough to do us justice and safeguard our wellbeing?
1. Sufferers of EHS are reeling under the onslaught of wireless-radiation that by Ofcom’s authority they are now subjected to, everywhere they go. Unprecedented in the history of the planet, never before has so widespread, constant and untested wireless technology been unleashed on the whole ecosystem without adequate oversight and controls.
2. The UK Government, through Ofcom, has allowed, indeed encouraged everyone’s forced participation in the biggest uncontrolled biological experiment since the Nazi’s. Ordinary people who are unable to tolerate even the present level of these now ubiquitous emissions are losing their jobs, their homes, their opportunities - their lives. They have no access to medical and dental care, their ability to travel is curtailed, they are forced into isolation. Their rights are quietly being stripped from them. They have become outcasts and refugees in their own homelands. In short, like the polar bears, wolves and the American Indians, they are quietly having their habitats taken from them under official sanction. It is already a scandal. It is obscene that this intolerable situation is being promoted under official acquiescence. Increasing the power of mobile phone base stations will further accelerate this process and should not be allowed. The people at Ofcom should be ashamed to be associated with enabling such a power increase.
3. Mobile phone radiation was not safety tested before it was let loose on the public. It is now impossible to conduct case controlled studies into its biological effects. There are now no un-irradiated individuals, animals or plants, let alone bees. Increasing the power of mobile phone base stations will further accelerate the damage being done and should not be allowed.
1. Mobile phone base station emissions in our collective environment do not exist in isolation. They are part of the cacophony of digital signals to which we are now all subjected. Until it is known why they and other forms of man-made digitally pulsed microwave radiation makes some people sick, allowing an increase in radiated power is dangerous, irresponsible and should not be allowed.
2.
3. Incredibly, Ofcom does not know how much digitally pulsed microwave radiation is emitted from all the transmitters on the masts to which it, on the Government’s behalf, grants licences. Ofcom does not ask the operators and the operators are not obliged to provide information on the number of individual transmitters or their antenna gain in any particular direction. Even if Ofcom did know, because each licence application is considered in isolation, they have no idea of the total emissions from any given mast, rooftop or other installed facility.
4.
5. Even if Ofcom conducts measurements, it is clear to those adversely affected that in the digital realm, gross power levels are an inadequate metric for assessing biological effects. Indeed Ofcom do not appear empowered to consider biological effects, deferring to other equally complicit organisations such as ICNIRP, the UK’s Health Protection Agency - HPA and The World Health Organisation - WHO to cover their ignorance, lack of remit and lack of influence.
6.
7. Even if Ofcom had all of the information believed lacking, they have no way of factoring in all the other exposures to which people are subjected as they go about their normal daily business. Digital Terrestrial TV - DTV, Digital Audio Broadcasts - DAB, satellites, airborne radar and HAPS to name but a few. Wireless alarm systems, leakage from microwave ovens - the list goes on and on, never mind those ignorant or foolhardy enough hold mobile phones to their heads. Where is precaution in any of this? Until more is known about the now undeniable adverse biological effects of pulsed digital microwave radiation and other forms of man-made electromagnetic radiation, increased signal strengths from mobile phone base stations should not be allowed.
8.
9. This Government and Ofcom are subservient to, and slavishly compromised by the ICNIRP standards which allow blanket exposure based on gross analogue power levels, taking into no account the non-thermal effects of digital signals. Increased levels of digitally pulsed mobile phone base station microwave emissions should not be allowed.
10.
11. Britain, like the rest of the world has allowed itself to be swept up on a wave of technological advantage with scant regard for the health consequences. Ofcom have been instrumental in that process. A public health tsunami of unimaginable consequence is building.
So if you wish to participate in Ofcom’s ‘consultation’ and share your thoughts with them, go right ahead.
A similar ‘consultation process’ was enacted in Sweden in 2000. It took years for all the data to eventually surface, and then only because a few enlightened dedicated people made it happen.
If you want to know how others might feel about an increase in licensed mobile phone base station power, you have only to consult Black On White, the testimony of over 400 Swedish people whose lives have been destroyed by electromagnetic radiation.
It is available as a free download from http://www.feb.se/feb/blackonwhite-complete-book.pdf
Ofcom have given us the spur on which to collect our thoughts. Please use this opportunity to share them with the rest of the world who are watching from the wilderness.
Extract from Ofcom’s official website: What is Ofcom? Ofcom is the communications regulator. We regulate the TV and radio sectors, fixed line telecoms and mobiles, plus the airwaves over which wireless devices operate.
We make sure that people in the UK get the best from their communications services and are protected from scams and sharp practices, while ensuring that competition can thrive. Ofcom operates under the Communications Act 2003. This detailed Act of Parliament spells out exactly what Ofcom should do. The Act says that Ofcom’s general duties should be to further the interests of citizens and of consumers. Meeting these two duties is at the heart of everything we do. Accountable to Parliament, we are involved in advising and setting some of the more technical aspects of policy, implementing and enforcing the law. Independent of Government, our decisions and advice are not swayed by party politics, which allows us to act solely in the interest of citizens and consumers.
http://www.Ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/3Glicences/3Glicences/
1.8 We are asking stakeholders to consider the following questions when responding to this consultation:
Are there any reasonable grounds why Ofcom should not grant the request to vary the five Wireless Telegraphy Third Generation Mobile Licences by increasing the permitted maximum in-band EIRP to 68dBm as soon as practicable? If so, please explain your reasoning for this.
Are there any reasonable grounds why Ofcom should not also apply the increased permitted maximum in-band EIRP to future 2 GHz MSS/CGC licences? If so, please explain your reasoning for this.
Such a request for information seems like a straightforward, honourable and reasonable position to take. Participation by ‘stakeholders’ - those who have something to gain or lose, is granted to all comers, for free. On the face of it, the consultative processes may seem like democracy in action.
But there is another interpretation: Yet more of our ‘inalienable’ right to unpolluted living space is about to be taken from us, and those with the power to do it are granting us the opportunity to express our opinion, to ‘get it off our chest’, as it were.
There are a number of reasons why consultation ‘rights’ might be granted:
• It makes the organisation asking appear fair and reasonable.
• It defuses opposition and protest.
• It divides and conquers (views flow into organisations, decisions flow out).
• It allows people with little or no power to believe they have some influence.
• It allows a gullible public to believe their rights are being treated with respect.
• It allows the recipients to ‘weigh the evidence’ according to their criteria.
The organisation offering the ‘consultation’ naturally cannot promise any particular action in response to concerns expressed as they do not know in advance what those views will be. They are nevertheless often the sole arbiter of which views are represented and what weight is given to them - they also control what data is published and when.
• The consultative process relies on those being consulted believing that their views may have a beneficial influence.
• Consultation takes the anger, force and motivation out of opposition. It provides a wall against which to throw sand.
• It provides insight into detail, strength of feeling and likely opposition.
• It buys time during which implementation plans can be fine-tuned to minimize the cost of adverse reactions.
• It provides apparent legitimacy for the chosen course of action.
Anything you get for free has got to be of questionable value. Being given the opportunity to express ones views, to defend one’s rights, by those who have the power to remove them, is a free opportunity that does not come without cost. After a suitable delay, expect a statement to the effect of: “All stakeholders have been given the opportunity to express their views and all submissions received by the deadline have been considered.”
Freely handing over one’s thoughts is a matter of trust. For many, Ofcom, particularly by its continued slavish adherence to the ICNIRP standard and its enthusiastic support for digital roll-outs, has failed to demonstrate that it is an official branch of this government that warrants the trust of those made ill by the technologies they promote.
Submissions which fall broadly in favour of the published plan may suggest additional business opportunities and will surely point to advantages of the plan which may be promoted to those less convinced by its benefits. Submissions broadly against the plan allow arguments to be identified and counter-arguments to be developed, disseminated and practiced.
Ofcom are not there to protect the public’s health. There is nothing in their statement about safety and deciding on ‘citizen’s best interests’ covers a multitude of sins. Delivering willing and reassured consumers to the incredibly powerful and influential telecommunications industry seems a plausible explanation. But why should such an outrageous thing be allowed to happen, especially regardless of the consequences suffered by some people? Never mind the billions of pounds/dollars/euros/yen that smooth the process, Governments cannot achieve sufficient intelligence information to counter terrorism without the support of the telecommunications companies. Our collective security is unfortunately now dependent on a dangerous and unequal alliance between Government and Very Very Big Business.
But people will say things like:
“If we don’t tell Ofcom our views when they do ask, how will they know what we want? Ofcom will say we don’t care and go ahead anyway.”
What is the point of telling Ofcom our views if we are not convinced Ofcom or the Governments ‘technology partners’ will not simply use our input to legitimize their actions? Is the mobile mast power upgrade a ‘done-deal’ and is public consultation merely ‘window dressing’? Why should the disenfranchised have any influence now when they have had precious little before?
If these words are representative of wider feelings, they may resonate with EMF Refugees across the world. Perhaps others will be inspired to share their otherwise private submissions with a wider and perhaps more receptive audience.
Does Ofcom deserve our respect and trust? Do we believe in its objectives? Do we support what it says it stands for? Do we feel our elected officials and unelected representatives who nonetheless speak and act on our behalf and with our authority, do we believe them to be smart, well-informed and influential enough to do us justice and safeguard our wellbeing?
1. Sufferers of EHS are reeling under the onslaught of wireless-radiation that by Ofcom’s authority they are now subjected to, everywhere they go. Unprecedented in the history of the planet, never before has so widespread, constant and untested wireless technology been unleashed on the whole ecosystem without adequate oversight and controls.
2. The UK Government, through Ofcom, has allowed, indeed encouraged everyone’s forced participation in the biggest uncontrolled biological experiment since the Nazi’s. Ordinary people who are unable to tolerate even the present level of these now ubiquitous emissions are losing their jobs, their homes, their opportunities - their lives. They have no access to medical and dental care, their ability to travel is curtailed, they are forced into isolation. Their rights are quietly being stripped from them. They have become outcasts and refugees in their own homelands. In short, like the polar bears, wolves and the American Indians, they are quietly having their habitats taken from them under official sanction. It is already a scandal. It is obscene that this intolerable situation is being promoted under official acquiescence. Increasing the power of mobile phone base stations will further accelerate this process and should not be allowed. The people at Ofcom should be ashamed to be associated with enabling such a power increase.
3. Mobile phone radiation was not safety tested before it was let loose on the public. It is now impossible to conduct case controlled studies into its biological effects. There are now no un-irradiated individuals, animals or plants, let alone bees. Increasing the power of mobile phone base stations will further accelerate the damage being done and should not be allowed.
1. Mobile phone base station emissions in our collective environment do not exist in isolation. They are part of the cacophony of digital signals to which we are now all subjected. Until it is known why they and other forms of man-made digitally pulsed microwave radiation makes some people sick, allowing an increase in radiated power is dangerous, irresponsible and should not be allowed.
2.
3. Incredibly, Ofcom does not know how much digitally pulsed microwave radiation is emitted from all the transmitters on the masts to which it, on the Government’s behalf, grants licences. Ofcom does not ask the operators and the operators are not obliged to provide information on the number of individual transmitters or their antenna gain in any particular direction. Even if Ofcom did know, because each licence application is considered in isolation, they have no idea of the total emissions from any given mast, rooftop or other installed facility.
4.
5. Even if Ofcom conducts measurements, it is clear to those adversely affected that in the digital realm, gross power levels are an inadequate metric for assessing biological effects. Indeed Ofcom do not appear empowered to consider biological effects, deferring to other equally complicit organisations such as ICNIRP, the UK’s Health Protection Agency - HPA and The World Health Organisation - WHO to cover their ignorance, lack of remit and lack of influence.
6.
7. Even if Ofcom had all of the information believed lacking, they have no way of factoring in all the other exposures to which people are subjected as they go about their normal daily business. Digital Terrestrial TV - DTV, Digital Audio Broadcasts - DAB, satellites, airborne radar and HAPS to name but a few. Wireless alarm systems, leakage from microwave ovens - the list goes on and on, never mind those ignorant or foolhardy enough hold mobile phones to their heads. Where is precaution in any of this? Until more is known about the now undeniable adverse biological effects of pulsed digital microwave radiation and other forms of man-made electromagnetic radiation, increased signal strengths from mobile phone base stations should not be allowed.
8.
9. This Government and Ofcom are subservient to, and slavishly compromised by the ICNIRP standards which allow blanket exposure based on gross analogue power levels, taking into no account the non-thermal effects of digital signals. Increased levels of digitally pulsed mobile phone base station microwave emissions should not be allowed.
10.
11. Britain, like the rest of the world has allowed itself to be swept up on a wave of technological advantage with scant regard for the health consequences. Ofcom have been instrumental in that process. A public health tsunami of unimaginable consequence is building.
So if you wish to participate in Ofcom’s ‘consultation’ and share your thoughts with them, go right ahead.
A similar ‘consultation process’ was enacted in Sweden in 2000. It took years for all the data to eventually surface, and then only because a few enlightened dedicated people made it happen.
If you want to know how others might feel about an increase in licensed mobile phone base station power, you have only to consult Black On White, the testimony of over 400 Swedish people whose lives have been destroyed by electromagnetic radiation.
It is available as a free download from http://www.feb.se/feb/blackonwhite-complete-book.pdf
Ofcom have given us the spur on which to collect our thoughts. Please use this opportunity to share them with the rest of the world who are watching from the wilderness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)