Enter forum description here ...
No similar topics found.
New Research Links Cell Phones To Health Issues In Children
BALTIMORE (WJZ) — For years, we’ve heard of a possible link between cell phone use and cancer. Now, this week, researchers in Baltimore say the evidence is clear, and children are more at risk.
WJZ’s Amy Yensi with more on the disturbing findings.
The studies link cell phones to a slew of health issues in children. That’s why experts say parents and expecting mothers need to be extra careful.
Cell phones are a part of our every day lives and a cause for concern for researchers who see them as a health risk — especially for infants and children.
“The weight of the evidence is clear: cell phones do cause brain cancer,” said Dr. Devras Davis, president, Environmental Health Trust.
Dr. Davis says the young brain absorbs twice as much radiation as an adult.
Doctors and scientists from across the country took on the issue during a pediatric conference at the Baltimore Convention Center. Panelists also found a connection between exposure to cell phone radiation and other health issues.
“There’s a correlation between cell phone use in pregnancy and behavioral problems in their children,” said Dr. Hugh Taylor, Yale School of Medicine.
“These devices are really stressing and straining our family relationships because the average mom or dad will check their phones 60 to 110 times a day,” said Dr. Catherine Steiner-Adair, clinical psychologist.
Doctors say the infant brain — even while in the womb — is especially vulnerable.
“Keep the phone away from the abdomen — especially toward the end of pregnancy,” said Dr. Davis.
Experts say holding your phone even a few inches away can lower the risk. They recommend using headsets, and when you’re not on your phone, to keep it as far away from you as possible.
“So we’re getting like a triple, quadruple whammy between the biological effect, the psychological effects and the brain waves effects,” said Dr. Martha Herbert, pediatric neurologist.
Effects may not be completely avoidable in a high-tech world.
Some researchers say the U.S. is lagging behind other countries when it comes to radiation research and prevention.
The Environmental Health Trust is calling on cell phone manufacturers and wireless providers to help fund research on how to treat and prevent exposure to radiation.
The Wireless Technology ‘Conspiracy’ is Not a Theory
“What we’re doing is a grand world experiment without informed consent.”
— Microwave researcher Allan Frey
In the backstory of wireless technology, ‘conspiracy’ is not a theory.
Over the past 20 years wireless technology has become embedded in our lives, to a point of dependence and addiction that is quite amazing to me. My study of the health effects of weak EMFs keeps circling back to the history of how the wireless industry developed into a very powerful political lobby, revealing deepening layers of a dark backstory. It’s a story of directed science used to benefit the military and the telecom industry in their operations, and of suppressed science when findings were not to the industry’s liking — and of a practice of discrediting scientists and their studies that dared report findings not in agreement with the military-industry version of reality.
There’s even an element of deliberate scientific misinformation about microwave effects, published during the Cold War years under the guise of national security.
An article by Christopher Ketcham published in GQ Magazine in 2010 is the best summary of the backstory I have found to date. He writes:
It’s hard to talk about the dangers of cell-phone radiation without sounding like a conspiracy theorist. This is especially true in the United States, where non-industry-funded studies are rare, where legislation protecting the wireless industry from legal challenges has long been in place, and where our lives have been so thoroughly integrated with wireless technology that to suggest it might be a problem — maybe, eventually, a very big public-health problem — is like saying our shoes might be killing us.
… To understand how radiation from cell phones and wireless transmitters affects the human brain, and to get some sense of why the concerns raised in so many studies outside the U.S. are not being seriously raised here, it’s necessary to go back fifty years, long before the advent of the cell phone, to the research of a young neuroscientist named Allan Frey.
Ketcham goes on to explain that in 1960 Frey took an interest in the electrical nature of the human body and he began researching how electric fields produced from the non-ionizing part of the electromagnetic spectrum could affect neural functioning in the brain.
There were no cell phones then – the microwave frequencies of the day were radar waves. The scientific thought of the day was a physicist/engineer’s paradigm, that human bodies are bags of water that can be heated up. The military and their contractors, makers of microwave ovens, and telecom companies were happy to embrace this paradigm. The thinking was simple and easy to understand: no heating = no harm. If the microwaves emitted by a device didn’t cause a human body to experience excessive heat, then those devices were harmless.
And this primitive mindset was sufficient to move their agendas forward and to protect their operations from liability.
internet addiction smartphone iPhone addiction
Today we know that a human body is not a simple bag of water. We are more a complex organization of electrical fields that regulate what goes into and out of every cell in our bodies. It’s not an overstatement to say that electricity drives our biology and these fields are now routinely measured with electroencephalograms and electrocardiograms.
Allan Frey became a pioneer in a new field of study known as bioelectromagnetics, and he found what appeared to be very serious non-thermal effects from microwave frequencies. In 1975, he published a paper reporting that microwaves pulsed at certain modulations could cause leakage in the blood-brain barrier. For the previous fifteen years, he had received very generous funding from the Office of Naval Research. With these findings he was told to conceal his blood-brain barrier work, or his contract would be canceled.
That is the first detailed account of suppressed science relating to health effects of microwave EMFs that I have read. There have been many more accounts since 1975, right to present day. Scientists who have dared report ‘non-thermal’ health effects from exposure to electromagnetic fields have largely been silenced, defunded, discredited, or shunned by their peers as charlatans. Industry, military and government policies and safety standards are still based on the paradigm that if microwaves don’t heat us, they can’t possibly harm us. And a wireless telecom industry with annual revenues in the hundreds of billions of dollars has an incentive and the power to silence or deflect research showing the dangers of cell phone and WiFi use, and of the infrastructure that makes them work.
The U.S. Congress has, for the past 20 years, heavily supported the relentless march of microwave cell towers across the land. Nearly $50 million in political contributions and lobbying from the telecom industry greased the skids for passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which included a watershed prize for the cell phone companies. Section 704 of the Act prohibits local governments from stopping placement of a cell tower due to environmental concerns. “There could be no litigation to oppose cell towers [based on the argument that] the signals make you sick.”
Allan Frey is an old man now, if he is still living. He was 75 in 2010 when Christopher Ketcham interviewed him.
Frey shook his head. “Until there are bodies in the streets,” he said, “I don’t think anything is going to change.” I do hope he is wrong in that prediction.
Ketcham’s article is lengthy, but well worth the read.
As individuals we can inform ourselves of the health risks of wireless technology through personal research, and take action to at least partially protect ourselves and our families from EMF effects. Taking self-responsibility in this domain is a lonely and uphill journey so long as our government and the wireless industry continue to insist that ‘we the people’ are bags of water, and no heat = no harm.
While that simple engineer’s paradigm of biology remains so profitable, and government is watching their back, there is no industry incentive to change it. And the general public continues to clamor for more and better wireless services, requiring more and more wireless infrastructure.
Your Mobile Phone: Radiation Levels & Separation Distance
According to test reports filed with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for the iPhone SE for cellular transmission is 1.14 watts per kilogram (w/kg) at the head, and 1.14 w/kg when worn on the body. The wireless router SAR is also 1.14 w/kg. The SAR for simultaneous transmission (cellular plus Wi-Fi) is 1.59 w/kg at the head, 1.58 w/kg when worn on the body, and 1.56 w/kg when the phone is used as a hotspot.
All SARs reported above are averaged over one gram of body tissue corresponding to the U.S. standard. According to the testing service, “The results documented in this report apply only to the tested sample, under the conditions and modes of operation as described herein.” The minimum separation distance for body-worn testing and hotspot exposure was 5 mm (about 0.2 of an inch). The SARs that the user experiences may vary depending upon the user's cell phone carrier.
The SARs for the iPhone 6 models can be found at http://bit.ly/iphone6radiation.
What do SAR values mean to the consumer?
The legal limit for the SAR in the U.S. is 1.60 w/kg (averaged over one gram of tissue).
The FCC requires that all cell phone models be tested for their Specific Absorption Rate or SAR. The SAR is a measure of the maximum amount of microwave radiation absorbed by the head or the body. It is measured in a laboratory using an artificial model of a large adult male with different fluids to simulate human tissue. The SAR, which is measured in watts per kilogram, represents the maximum amount of energy absorbed in any one gram of tissue in the test model. Phones sold in the U.S. typically range in SAR values from about 0.20 w/kg up to the 1.60 legal limit. (3, 4)
The SAR test, adopted in 1996 by the FCC, was criticized by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2012. (5) The test does not reflect those who currently use cell phones, nor does it correspond to the way people use them. Today many children are cell phone users -- the child’s brain absorbs twice the radiation as the adult’s brain. Moreover, the artificial head does not contain any metal (e.g., dental fillings, earrings, or eyeglass frames) which could increase the radiation absorption beyond the measured SAR in the laboratory. (5)
The FCC assumes that consumers will carry their cell phones in a manufacturer-approved holder that keeps the phone a minimum distance away from the body. However, most people do not keep their phone in a cell phone holder. For the body-worn SAR test, the FCC allows the manufacturer to choose the separation distance between the cell phone and the test model as long as consumers are informed about the minimum distance tested. However, few consumers are aware of the manufacturer’s recommended minimum body separation distance from their cell phone because this information is often difficult to find. Thus, most consumers are in the dark about precautions they can take to keep their exposure to microwave radiation below the legal limit. This prompted the city of Berkeley, California to adopt landmark legislation that requires cellphone retailers to inform their customers about the manufacturer’s safety information.
To ensure that the cell phone does not exceed the legal limit, consumers should never keep their cell phone in their pockets or next to their skin. The cell phone is not tested directly against the body because almost all cell phones would fail the SAR test as the radiation absorption increases dramatically when the cell phone is close to the body.
Is the legal limit sufficient to protect the cell phone user’s health?
Federal policies in the U.S. could lead the public to believe that all legally-marketed cell phones are safe, and that a cell phone's SAR doesn't matter as long as it meets the legal limit: 1.6 watts per kilogram. (3, 4)
However, the Environmental Working Group and experts point out that the SAR only measures the maximum microwave absorption from cell phone use that perfectly matches laboratory conditions. The SAR is not a good indicator of one’s cumulative microwave exposure under naturalistic conditions. The research evidence suggests that how one uses the phone (e.g., hands-free) and one’s cell phone carrier actually matters more than the phone’s SAR level. (4, 6, 7)
The SAR standard was developed to protect users only from the acute effects of the heat generated by microwave radiation (i.e., the thermal effect). (5) The SAR limit does not protect users from the non-thermal effects caused by the cumulative exposure over time to cell phone radiation.
Yet, thousands of laboratory studies with animals and cell samples have found deleterious biologic effects from short-term exposure to low intensity cell phone radiation, including development of stress proteins, micronuclei, free radicals, DNA breakage, and sperm damage. (8) Human studies have also found that brief exposure to cell phone radiation alters brain activity and can open the blood-brain barrier which could enable chemical toxins in the circulatory system to penetrate the brain. (9)
Major studies with humans have found increased cancer risk, including a three-fold increase in brain cancer among those who used wireless phones (cell phones and cordless phones) for 25 or more years. (10) Based upon this research, the World Health Organization in 2011 declared radiofrequency radiation "possibly carcinogenic" in humans (Group 2B). (11)
Other risks from cell phone use include reproductive health damage and male infertility, and neurological disorders (e.g., impaired cognitive functioning, headaches and migraines, and ADHD [attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder]) in children. (12, 13)
Based upon the weight of the evidence from several decades of research including thousands of peer-reviewed published studies, many experts worldwide have signed declarations calling upon government to adopt stronger radiation standards to protect consumers from low intensity, non-thermal exposures from radiation associated with wireless communications, and to alert consumers about how to reduce their risk of harm. (14 -16) Recent evidence suggests that brain tumor incidence is increasing in the U.S. and other countries and exposure to cell phone radiation may be contributing to this increase. (17) Two hundred and twenty (220) scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields and biology or health have now signed a petition, the International EMF Scientist Appeal, calling for more protective limits on radiation from wireless devices including cellphones.
For tips on how to reduce your exposure to wireless radiation, see "Some Tips to ReduceYour Exposure to Wireless Radiation". (18) In short, limit your use of the phone, keep the phone away from your body whenever it is powered on, use the phone hands-free, and turn off transmitters not in use (e.g., shut off Wi-Fi or use airplane mode).
References
(1) UL Verification Services, Inc . SAR Evaluation Report for Cellular Phone with Bluetooth and WLAN Radios. FCC ID: BCG-E3042A. Model Name: A1723, A1724. Report No. 15U21635-S1V2. Fremont, CA. Issue Date: 2/2/2016.
(2) Skipped.
(3) FCC. Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for Cellular Telephones. Undated. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cellular-telephones
(4) FCC. “Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) For Cell Phones: What It Means For You.” Undated. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you
(5) Joel Moskowitz. “"Comments on the 2012 GAO Report: 'Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed'.:” http://www.saferemr.com/2013/01/commentary-gao-2012-report-on-mobile.html
(6) Wolchover N. Radiation Risk: Are Some Cellphones More Dangerous Than Others? Life's Little Mysteries. June 23, 2011. http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1550-radiation-risk-some-cell-phones-more-dangerous-than-others.html
(7) Environmental Working Group. EWG’s Guide to Safer Cell Phone Use: Where is EWG's cell phone database? August 27 2013.
(8) Giuliani L. Soffritti M. Non-thermal effects and mechanisms of interaction between electromagnetic fields and living matter. ICEMS Monograph. Bologna, Italy: National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer. 2010. http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm
(9) Joel Moskowitz. “LTE Cell Phone Radiation Affects Brain Activity in Cell Phone Users.” Sep 20, 2013. http://www.prlog.org/12215083
(10) Joel Moskowitz. “Brain Cancer Risk Increases with the Amount of Wireless Phone Use: Study. http://www.prlog.org/12216483
(11) Joel Moskowitz. “Most Significant Government Health Report on Mobile Phone Radiation Ever Published.” http://www.prlog.org/12125230
(12) Joel Moskowitz. “Cell Phone Radiation, Pregnancy, and Sperm.” Nov 19, 2012. http://www.prlog.org/12026867
(13) Joel Moskowitz. “Cell Phone Use and Prenatal Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation May Cause Headaches in Children.“ http://www.prlog.org/12269207
(14) Joel Moskowitz. “Part I: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Testimony Submitted to the FCC.” Aug 4, 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone.html
(15) Joel Moskowitz. “Part II: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC.” Aug 4, 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone_43.html
(16) Joel Moskowitz. “Part III: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--98 Scientific Experts Who Signed Resolutions.” Aug 4, 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone_4.html
(17) Joel Moskowitz. Brain Tumor Rates are Increasing in the U.S.: The Role of Cell Phone and Cordless Phone Use. http://bit.ly/risingtumors
(18) Joel Moskowitz. Some Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to Wireless Radiation (one page handout). Undated. http://bit.ly/saferemrtips3
Canadians are calling on building professionals to reduce their EMF exposure
When leukemia struck Christian Groulx's three-year-old son, Ylan, in 2007, it rattled the Quebec builder's outlook on life. Luckily, Ylan was cured and Groulx was transformed right down to his building practices. That's because he learned that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produced by power lines, electric appliances and home wiring are among the suspected triggers of leukemia and brain cancer, especially in children. In fact, electrical code violations are the major cause of EMFs.
"I decided to investigate EMF health effects in detail to see how I could reduce their impacts on my family and my clients," said Groulx, co-owner of Eastman-based Habitations Kyo.
Why Precaution Is Warranted
Electrosmog mitigation is a growing housing market as more and more Canadians are calling on building professionals to reduce their radiation exposure. Two types of domestic radiation are classified as "possibly carcinogenic" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): 60 Hertz (Hz) magnetic fields, generated by current (amperage) when electricity is consumed, officially linked with greater risk of child leukemia in 2001; and radiofrequency (RF)/microwaves used by antennas and wireless devices, which IARC tied to brain cancer in 2011. (Electric fields created by voltage have not been classified by IARC.)
And in the age of wireless, "the number of diagnosed cases of electrohypersensitivity (EHS) has increased dramatically in the last 10 years," according to Dr. Riina Bray, Medical Director of the Environmental Health Clinic at Women's College Hospital in Toronto. As many as 3 per cent of Canadians are complaining of severe headaches, insomnia, heart palpitations and other acute EHS symptoms not linked to any disease and which regress when RF exposure is reduced, often without people's knowledge.
But the science is inconclusive, so Health Canada says precautionary measures are not needed to reduce daily EMF exposures. Yet thousands of independently funded studies (see bioinitiative.org) and hundreds of experts (emfscientist.org) suggest otherwise. High EMFs can notably hamper the body's nighttime healing mechanisms. Builders, renovators and electricians have an important role to play in helping reduce their clients' unnecessary EMF exposure, often with no-cost or low-cost measures. This introductory article will focus solely on 60 Hz magnetic fields.
Start by Measuring
How can building professionals stand out? "In existing housing, many constraints warrant hiring a consultant to measure EMFs, pinpoint problems and recommend solutions," said Christian Groulx. "In new housing, it's pretty simple if you follow a few basic rules."
The first thing to do is to buy a quality meter, such as the Cornet ED-78S EMF/RF detector, which costs $155 (at www.slt.co). IARC said children chronically exposed to magnetic fields above 4 milligauss (mG) or 0.4 microtesla (µT) double their relative risk of leukemia. And kids with leukemia have a poorer survival rate if they are exposed to fields above 1-3 mG (0.1-0.3 µT). Paradoxically, Health Canada says short-term exposures to 833 mG (83.3 µT) fields are acceptable to prevent acute effects such as nerve and muscle stimulation, but it does not consider long-term risks such as cancer. For its part, the Austrian Medical Association says chronic exposures above 1 mG (0.1 µT) are unacceptable.
The most common wiring error is to connect the neutrals from two different circuits, which happen to be sharing a box like a wall switch box with multiple switches, according to Karl Riley. Returning neutral current from one circuit then goes back on both neutrals (paralleling), unbalancing the cable and generating a magnetic field. This is a code violation as is grounding neutral buses in subpanels, but is commonly done out of both ignorance and convenience by many electricians.
Photo: Karl Riley/Magnetic Sciences
Wiring Errors the Major Culprit
Living close to a power line, using electric heating and outdated knob-and-tube wiring, and living in multifamily housing are common sources of high magnetic fields. However, about 70 per cent of the time, the most common cause is living in a home with wiring errors, and/or code violations that present fire and shock hazards, says American consultant Karl Riley, author of the bestselling guide, Tracing EMFs in Building Wiring and Grounding.
"Elevated magnetic fields in buildings are caused mainly by net currents in unbalanced circuits, meaning some of the neutral return current has been diverted to other paths due to common wiring connection errors," explained Riley. "It can also be caused by neutral current splitting and part of it exiting the building through the grounding conductor to the metal water pipes which present a parallel path for neutral current to return to the transformer."
This is why Christian Groulx prefers plastic plumbing as it is non-conductive and grounds the electrical system on two buried metal rods. In existing housing, replacing a section of the water service pipe with plastic pipe or dielectric (brass and plastic) coupling stops the flow of neutral current (and its magnetic field) throughout the house.
Energy Efficiency and Distance Key
Since magnetic fields are generated by current, reducing power use will reduce their intensity. And by balancing the amount of current circulating on nearby cables, their magnetic fields cancel each other out. That's why twisted pairs are now used in most radiant electric heating cables instead of single conductors (like knob-and-tube wiring). "If the wiring is correct (neutral equals hot current, hence cancels fields)," explained Riley, "then inches away achieves under 1 mG, but if there is a wiring connection error, three feet away could still have you in 3+ mG. However, too many factors are involved to recommend safe distances from power lines and wiring."
Ideally, site building and bedrooms as far away as possible from power lines. The service drop should be underground and perpendicular to structure, and electrical panels should be at least 6 to 10 feet from sleep and work areas, advises British Columbia consultant Chris Anderson of ElectroSmog Solutions. Riley adds that DC power does not induce currents in people and objects and that pure sine-wave inverters for alternative energy systems also produce less EMFs.
Magnetic fields travel through building materials. "Net current from wiring errors is unshieldable and drops off slowly with distance," said Riley. "As for magnetic fields from correctly wired sources, they can only be shielded with expensive ferrous metals, such as in MuMetal shielding. Appliances produce fields based on their containing coils of wire and weaken fast, with the cube of the distance. For example, a microwave oven produces a field from the wires of its transformer, usually under 1 mG at 1 meter."
More and more people with electrohypersensitivity are leaving cities to live in the countryside away from high EMFs, such as this group in France showing their medical certificates confirming their diagnosis.
Photo: next-up.org
Shielding Electric Fields
Finally, home wiring and plugged appliances always produce electric fields because of tension (voltage), present even when appliances are turned off. But, according to Riley, if installed according to Code, regular Loomex cable won't expose you to high electric fields. However more sensitive people such as children may react to very low levels, which is why Chris Anderson recommends hydronic heating instead of heating cables.
"It's best to use short back-and-forth wiring runs than creating loops around beds," said Groulx. The good news is that electric fields are easily shielded with armored cable, which Chris Anderson prefers where people spend time, especially bedrooms. "Since we are up to 100 times more vulnerable to any stress when we sleep and metal acts as an antenna, avoid placing bedrooms over garages and workspaces, or having metallic components under and near bed sites."
Concludes Riley, "Those rare people who are hypersensitive to electric fields will need a whole house with armored cable, and the cords and extension cords to all lights and appliances will also have to be shielded."
Military Radar and its Effect on Marine Life in Hawaii
BARKING SANDS — Representatives from Kauai’s conservation community recently met with representatives from the Pacific Missile Range Facility to discuss concerns that electromagnetic radiation coming from the high-powered radar and antennas could be the cause of coral’s decline.
“I walked away from the meeting today with a good understanding of the path we can now take to study and understand why we are suffering a massive die-off of our coral reefs here in Kauai,” marine biologist Terry Lilley said Wednesday.
Lilley has been documenting the decline of the coral reefs off Kauai since 2012, and is raising concerns about the military’s use of electromagnetic radiation and its effect on the reef.
Capt. Bruce Hay pointed out that PMRF is renowned for world-class training and testing, “but also recognized for environmental excellence.”
“Meetings such as the one that occurred this week only reinforce that we’re good neighbors and share the same values as our extended ohana, the community,” Hay said. “A positive dialogue was established between certified scientists and concerned citizens during the meeting.”
Stewart Simonson, an Atlanta-based senior chemical engineer who surveyed Kauai’s reef in 2014 and has been studying the area’s coral since then, said he thought the meeting was a step in the right direction.
“It has taken way too long — your reef is devastated,” Simonson said. “I have not seen a concrete plan of action from the meeting.”
Both he and Lilley said further studies on the root cause of the reef’s disintegration are desperately needed, but they have a few ideas on the cause of the disappearing coral.
After spending time underwater on Kauai and studying the reefs, Simonson’s theory is that the answer is accelerated corrosion — caused by an electrical current in the ocean.
Simonson said he’s found “hundreds of tons of calcium carbonate” dissolved in the sea where thriving reefs used to be on Kauai, “and that’s pretty impressive.”
“In the industry, if someone asked me to do that, I’d need tanker trucks of hydrochloric acid in concentrated form to get that much to dissolve,” Simonson said.
Corrosion, also known as oxidization or rusting, is a natural process, especially in the ocean. It’s one of the natural breakdown processes of nature and is well known to mariners, who will sometimes line their vessels with zinc to prevent corrosion of the boat’s metal.
“The zinc corrodes first, but that protects your steel propeller and steel parts from corrosion,” Simonson said. “You replace the zinc once it corrodes off.”
One of the easiest minerals to corrode is calcium, which is the main stuff of coral skeleton.
Normal corrosion rates wouldn’t cause the current reef destruction, Simonson said, but accelerated corrosion would — and to get accelerated corrosion, you just need to add a jolt.
“It only takes a very small amount of electrical current flowing in the atmosphere or in the water to speed up corrosion,” Simonson said.
Radar towers
PMRF has about 20 radar towers on North Kauai. They work by bouncing electromagnetic radiation off of things — that’s how they detect objects.
Electromagnetic radiation is composed of waves — just like light is, except that electromagnetic radiation isn’t visible to the human eye. According to scientific models, the radiation covers much of the northwest part of the island.
“If we could see the radiation like we can see light, the entire island would be lit up 24/7,” Lilley said. “That’s now much we’re exposed to every day.”
A lot of the electromagnetic radiation is soaked up by the environment or dissipates into the atmosphere. When there’s cloud cover, most of it is reflected back to the Earth, saturating everything.
“I think that when it gets absorbed in sea water, which is a good conductor, it goes to ground and I think it’s grounding out on the reef,” Simonson said.
That low-level electrical current in the water breaks everything down, and it speeds corrosion up by hundreds of thousands of times, he said.
“The primary driver might be voltage and the voltage is coming from all these antennas and the military is the biggest user,” Simonson said. “Especially when you have RIMPAC in town.”
RIMPAC
Rim of the Pacific occurs biennially on even-numbered years in June and July in the waters around Hawaii and California. It is the world’s largest multi-national maritime exercise and has been happening every two years since 1971.
RIMPAC lands 45 warships off the coast of Kauai, each with 50 to 100 antennas that pulse radar from the vessels, and all the electromagnetic radiation form those antennas compounds the native radiation.
“When RIMPAC is in town, you have probably at least two times the amount of radiation coming off the warships as you do off the top of the mountain at PMRF,” Simonson said.
Electrocution of sea life
It’s not just the reefs that are suffering off the coast of Kauai. During the 2014 RIMPAC games, Lilley reported dead whales, sharks, turtles and other sea life.
One turtle he found had all four of its fins badly mangled.
“Something blew off all of her fins and it was obvious that it wasn’t something that had just bitten off the edges of her fins,” Lilley said. “Another of the turtles I found was completely blind.”
Simonson’s electromagnetic radiation theory could explain this mystery as well.
He said electromagnetic fields (EMF) produce electromagnetic radiation and trigger an electrical current near the surface of the salt water — which is usually a great conductor.
The turtle “is poking his head up and floating around a bit near the surface and getting juiced a bit near the surface,” Simonson said.
Animals are bioelectric beings, meaning electric processes within the cells is partly what keeps them alive. Too much electric potential can interfere with the body’s natural electrical processes and can damage DNA. When that’s replicated, it repeats the damage and creates a tumor.
Simonson further theorizes that when it’s raining, the water’s conductivity drops near the surface and near lava tubes — making the path of least resistance a nearby turtle or other animal, instead of the water itself.
“I think the chance of electric shock is the highest and that’s where Terry is seeing the highest disease rates,” Simonson said.
Human effects
Lilley said it’s much more difficult to show a connection between electromagnetic radiation and human disease than it is to document the effect on marine life because of the secrecy of medical records.
“I don’t have to get a release to give out data on dying coral, turtles or whales,” Lilley said. “I just need the agreement of the critter and I have their agreement.”
Human biology uses the same bioelectric processes within cells to drive life and scientists theorize the effects of chronic exposure to high-powered electromagnetic radiation can cause tumors in human bodies, too.
As of now, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, there aren’t federal standards limiting electromagnetic fields, and the agency maintains there “is no clear scientific evidence that electromagnetic fields affect health.”
According to Lilley and Simonson, agreements were made between scientists and the representatives from PMRF to exchange information and work together to further study Kauai’s struggling coastal environment.
Hay said he and his staff are open to future possibilities.
“Additional positive benefit is yet to be determined, but certainly within the realm of possible,” Hay said.
PMRF did not respond to numerous questions from TGI regarding concerns expressed in this story about military activities and their impacts on marine life.
WI-FRIED: Could wireless devices be harming our health?
Could Wi-Fi-enabled devices be harmful to our health? You cannot see it or hear it but Wi-Fi blankets our homes, our schools and our cities. Australia's safety agency says there's no evidence of harm, but that's not the same as saying its safe. A growing number of scientists are concerned that the widespread use of Wi-Fi and Wi-Fi-enabled devices could be slowly making us sick. In this Catalyst investigation, Dr. Maryanne Demasi explores whether our wireless devices could be putting our health at risk.
Wi-Fi Exposure Graphs at North Kingstown, Rhode Island, High School
Below is a data plot of peak WiFi exposures experienced by a teacher and students at the North Kingstown, RI High School over two days, February 24, 2016 and February 26, 2016. The exposures resulted in the 9th Grade Math Teacher, Shelley MacDonald, experiencing migraines, brain fog, headaches and a throbbing head. When the teacher left school, the exposures and the symptoms stopped.
High School in North Kingstown Rhode Island
Ms. McDonald has appealed to the school administrators to consider the effect of WiFi at the school, but instead of genuine attention being paid to this matter, she has faced Administrators who say they are powerless to do anything and must defer to the position of the R.I. Department of Health, which relies on flawed FCC Radiofrequency exposure guidelines.
For those not familiar with these guidelines, the FCC exposure guidelines only consider one form of risk from wireless radiation, the thermal effects of the radiation. This, in effect, protects the commercial interests of the wireless industry, as if the non-thermal risks were considered, that would mean many electronic products—like school Wi-Fi routers—would not be considered safe and have to come off the market. Non-thermal effects (i.e. non-heating) include the effects of frequencies, the pulsing and peaks, and the cumulative and long-term effects. It’s not surprisingly the FCC is in effect turning a blind eye to the non-thermal effects as wireless industry insiders, like its Chairman Tom Wheeler, are in charge.
See the Harvard University report “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates” at http://tinyurl.com/zkgu33j to understand the FCC’s failures and why parents, teachers and schools need to investigate the risks of wireless technologies for themselves. The FCC is failing as a regulatory agency.
Ms. McDonald has now been brought up on disciplinary matters by the school related to her concern that student’s privacy rights are being violated by the data required to be submitted online for the PARCC test, and she faces potential firing at the end of the school year, ostensibly due to that issue, not because of her concern about wireless exposures at the school. Many believe she is being retaliated against because she has nobly persisted in raising an uncomfortable subject for the school in the interests of North Kingstown students, faculty and administrators.
North Kingston High School Wi-Fi Data Plot Graph
North Kingston High School Wi-Fi Data Plot Graph
** Note, the BioInitiative guideline used for reference here is the original 2007 BioInitiative recommendation for indoor continuous exposures of 0.1 mW/m2 (or 100 uW/ m2). The 2012 guideline is significantly lower than the 2007 recommendation, but the 2007 guideline is used here as it is considered to be more achievable.
What we learn from plotting the exposures at N. Kingstown H.S. is:
- WiFi exposure varied from period to period and also within class periods.
- WiFi should not be thought of as benign, static background energy, as in reality it is a highly variable, pulsing energy with high peaks.
- Exposures in the school are well above the recommended BioInitiative safe indoor safety guideline of .1 mW/m2 or 100 uW/m2
- A “cumulative exposure” measure would be a more accurate reflection of risk, as a one moment in time measurement does not convey the nature or amount of exposure to biologically active Radiofrequency radiation.
- Similarly, a metric for “Percentage of a Day” exposed, accounting for any times the body could rest and rebalance, would also be beneficial as a means of monitoring exposures.
- Using “average” exposures to determine if an exposure is within the current FCC thermal safety guidelines is inappropriate, as “average” exposures do not in any way reflect the true nature of the exposures, with pulsing and peaks. It is the pulsing and peaks to which the body responds, not the engineering measure of an ‘average’.
- Just because Wi-Fi is invisible does not mean it is not there or not biologically disruptive.
Also of note:
- WiFi routers in schools are typically industrial strength routers, designed to go through cement, to handle 100s of users, and to extend the signal into a large area through a building or campus. School routers are far more powerful than home routers.
- WiFi routers in schools keep getting stronger, and the signaling characteristics change. Newer router systems are directional in nature, meaning certain students in a classroom will be more exposed to the WiFi than others.
- North Kingstown High School is using WiFi despite the fact that the school already invested in hard-wiring capability. It is risking the health of students, faculty and administrators despite the fact that a safer alternative exists.
“Is the convenience of wireless delivery of the internet really worth risking our children’s health? N. Kingstown High School has wired internet installed and we should be using it, not wireless. It is everyone’s responsibility to advocate for the health and safety of our children.” – Math teacher Shelley McDonald
The concern voiced by Ms. McDonald and many other teachers, parents and administrators across the world about risks from wireless technologies in schools will be getting much more attention given an article published in IEEE Power Electronics Magazine (March 2016) showing weak magnetic fields can promote cancer by two esteemed scientists. The paper “Some Effects of Weak Magnetic Fields on Biological Systems: RF fields can change radical concentrations and cancer cell growth rates,” was authored by Distinguished Professor Frank Barnes in the Electrical, Computer and Energy Engineering Department at University of Colorado, and Ben Greenbaum, Professor Emeritus of Physics at University of Wisconsin-Parkside. (See Microwave News, March 18, 2016, http://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/barnes-greenebaum-weak-field-effects). The paper’s conclusions are consistent with the concern of over 220 international scientists who appealed to the United Nations last year (http://tinyurl.com/nlzxja6), and with the WHO’s classification of Radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and wireless technologies as a Group 2B ‘Possible Carcinogen’ in 2011 (http://tinyurl.com/o2dvt98 ). That classification will need to be updated.
Last Fall, we contributed a list, 10 Elements of an Electromagnetically Clean and Conscious School, for an article in Boston Parents, “Is WiFi Safe In Schools?”, and recommend them here for N. Kingstown High School:
- Use hard-wired cable or fiber optic communications networks, replacing over-the-air Wi-Fi transmissions.
- Install workstations with Ethernet connections available throughout the school for laptop Internet access.
- Teach students and school personnel to disable Wi-Fi functionality on laptops and personal devices and remove wireless “smart boards.”
- Institute a “No Cell Phone” policy on campus, including personal hotspot devices.
- Hard-wire computer peripherals such as mice, keyboards, speakers, monitors and other accessories.
- Hard-wire printers and disable Wi-Fi function.
- Disallow iPads or other tablets for students unless they accommodate an Ethernet connection and provide the ability to disable the wireless.
- Train school personnel to be alert for signs of chronic electro-sensitivity symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, fatigue, irritability, heart irregularities and concentration problems.
- Educate parents about the advisability of hard-wiring computers and Internet connections and limiting mobile phone use in the home.
- Assess via www.antennasearch.com and with a radio frequency (RF) meter any external RF radiation sources, such as from antennas or towers, within a mile of the school.
Antennas Near My House
Use www.antennasearch.com to search for antennas near your home or place of work. You might be surprised by the results!
Smithville, TX Awareness Sparks Smart Meter Backlash
SMITHVILLE, TX— Smithville is a small town of about 3800 residents in central Texas, about 40 miles southeast of Austin and about 100 miles northeast of San Antonio. It’s not just the town’s name – even residents say Smithville is a fairly ordinary small town and typical of “middle America” with a Main St. where everyone knows each another. A community meeting there last November that presented information about smart meters ignited debate and participation, galvanized the town to action, and generally shook politics up in a good way, according to residents.
Some background: About a year ago, the Smithville city council signed a “revenue neutral” contract with energy company Ameresco to replace all the analog water and electric meters in town with “smart” wireless meters and install LED streetlights (which have their own set of problems). Residents were informed of an “infrastructure upgrade” but few were aware of the implications and potential problems.
Jim Keller, a photographer and property owner in Smithville, and Kelly Holt, an investigative journalist running for the Smithville City Council, were aware of these problems and knew they had to act in order to bring critical information about the risks to the town’s attention. Acting on an ad hoc, independent basis, the two organized a community meeting to discuss the smart meter issue, and brought in experts. Jim Keller tells us that prior to the meeting, “I don’t think city staff or the meter manufacturers ever expected a backlash here in Smithville.”
Keller and Holt sent a mailer out to 2174 households in town on October 31st (using USPS Every Door Direct Mail) with facts about security and fire risks, inviting everyone to a community meeting to discuss smart meters on November 5th. They hoped a few people would turn out to have a discussion, but were not prepared for the response.
Neither were the city council nor Ameresco, who had simply considered the metering/ streetlight projects a mundane and routine “infrastructure upgrade.”
On the evening of November 5th 2015, more than 110 residents packed into an old school auditorium in the center of Smithville. The crowd included 4 of 5 city council members and 2 officials from Ameresco. Many were taken aback by the size of the crowd, including one of Ameresco’s staff who was reportedly appeared to be in shock at the number of people gathered to hear about the problems with the company’s products.
Speakers at the event included Sheila Hemphill of Texans Against Smart Meters and Laura Pressley of Austin Smart Meters.
No mention was made of the health effects of microwaves in the mailer, but the audience was passionately interested and the presenters delivered detailed information on current medical research and EMF exposure guidelines as they relate to the safety of exposure to smart meters. When moderator Jim Keller notified Sheila Hemphill that her time was up, a person in the audience yelled, “let her speak!” People were riveted to the presentations and hungry for more information on the topic. Several people shared specific concerns about health impacts from wireless technologies, including the interference problems with pacemakers.
Customer support service by UserEcho
