International
Pertubartion de la production de mélatonine suite à l’exposition aux CEM
The cell-phone poisoning of America
|
by Lynn Quiring, RPh, CCN, NMD 2008 from Scribd Website
This powerful and striking statement was made by prominent physician Andrew Weil, MD, best-selling author of eight books, a Harvard Medical School graduate, and internationally recognized expert on medicinal herbs and integrative medicine.
When you read the rest of this report you’ll understand why his statement is both accurate and valid.
The radiation was a continual round-the-clock bombardment as the Russians were using this technology in an attempt to listen in on conversations within the US compound. Soon the American embassy staff became ill. The US ambassador to Russia developed leukemia and was forced to return to the United States.
His replacement also developed leukemia and he, too, was replaced. Staff members were continually ill and additionally complained of memory loss, brain fog, loss of focus and insomnia during their stay in the embassy. “Radio Frequency Sickness Syndrome” was a condition the Russians had earlier identified in experiments. So they weren’t surprised to learn of these health problems.
However, this same technology is being promoted today as safe and convenient.
Convenient it may be but safe it is not.
These waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation, or EMR. When the cell phone is turned on it locates itself by broadcasting a series of signals to the cell phone carrier’s closest cell phone tower. The carrier then relays that information to the nearest mobile telephone switching office. When making a call the phone sends its data to the carrier’s nearest tower, to the switching office and then to the switching office in the area code of the number being called.
Once the connection is made the cell phone’s transmitter packages your voice or text data onto a second radio wave that is created for the purpose of transmitting the information. This second wave is called the Information-Carrying Radio Wave, or ICRW. When the call is received by the recipient’s switching office a connection is made through the nearest tower that connects the call with your phone.
Through a processor in the phone the digital information signal is converted into an analog signal so a voice can be heard. All this occurs in an average time of four to eight seconds. Each cell phone contains its own transmitter. The purpose of the transmitter is to encode information onto a radio wave. This radio wave radiates out from the phone’s antenna evenly through space. The information being encoded, for example, could be the sound of your voice, the data from your text message or a photo.
The transmitter will then send the encoded wave, with your information or voice, to the antenna and the antenna will then send the signal. The function of the antenna is to propel these radio waves out into space so that a receiver in a nearby cell tower will pick them up.
This makes the antenna the most dangerous part of the phone.
This 360-degree radius around the tower is called a “cell” and this is what the term “cell” in cell phone means. When a cell phone is in a “cell” one usually enjoys good reception. But when the cell phone is not in a “cell” area reception is poor. So for a cell phone company to provide complete coverage cell phone towers and antenna towers must be positioned all across the countryside so that the “cells” overlap one another.
One can begin to see what a huge infrastructure needs to be created to provide complete cell phone coverage. That’s why cell phone towers and antenna towers are so prevalent.
And that’s why these antennas are installed in so many places like fire stations, schools, churches and rooftops everywhere.
Cell phone radiation is one form of electromagnetic radiation. All electromagnetic radiation falls within a spectrum that can range from extremely low frequency radiation, or ELFs, on the low end, to microwaves, X-Rays and gamma rays at the upper end. For example, electrical power lines and wiring in our homes operate in the 60 Hertz frequency which is found at the low end of the spectrum.
AM radio operates at one megahertz while most cell phones operate in the range of 800 to 2200 megahertz. These frequencies are substantially higher than 60 Hertz. At the high end of the energy spectrum we find X-Rays that operate at more than one million megahertz. This kind of radiation energy is also known as “ionizing” radiation since these radio waves are so powerful that they can break chemical bonds in the body and cause genetic damage.
Radiation at the low end of the spectrum is known as “non-ionizing” radiation and radiation of this kind is generated by such devices as cell phones, cell phone towers, wireless routers, WiFi, etc. This form of radiation is too weak to break chemical bonds and is one reason why many falsely believe that cell phone radiation is harmless. When the radio wave from a cell phone is oscillating at 800 to 2200 megahertz, (or two thousand two hundred million cycles per second) it is moving much too fast for the body to detect. The body simply cannot recognize a radio wave moving at this speed and thus it moves invisibly through the body without detection.
Radiation moving this fast could only be recognized if it were driven by a very strong source of power. If the power driving a radio wave is of sufficient strength the wave could cause damage through the heating of biological tissue. Since cell phones aren’t strong enough to heat biological tissue the mechanism by which cell phone radiation causes harm occurs in a different manner.
This mechanism will be explained in a different section of this report.
Electricity is simply the flow of electrons.
This can occur over a high power transmission line or through wiring in the home or office. Whenever electricity passes through a wire two fields of force are created. One is an electrical field and the other is a magnetic field. In the United States electrical current reverses direction 60 times each second and thus is called alternating current, or AC.
The cycles of current are measured in a unit called Hertz (Hz) so named for the German physicist Heinrich Hertz.
Hertz is simply defined as the number of cycles per second. Electrical current in the U.S. operates at 60 Hz while electricity in most other parts of the world operates at 50 Hz. Most electric power in the U.S. is of an extremely low frequency, i.e., under 3000 Hz.
As frequencies increase, the distance between one wave and the next becomes shorter and shorter. Consequently, there is a greater amount of energy generated in the field. Shorter wavelengths mean greater energy. Electrical fields can be shielded rather easily by using metallic barriers. However, magnetic fields, such as those in the 60 Hz range, will easily penetrate through most any barrier and become very difficult, if not impossible, to shield.
It’s important to understand the term Hertz (Hz) since it is used commonly to express the frequencies of appliances and devices like cell phones and microwave ovens. Megahertz (MHz) is one million hertz and gigahertz (GHz) is one billion hertz or one billion cycles per second. Most cell phones operate in the frequency range of 800 to 2200 megahertz. To make a comparison, the human heart being dependent upon electrical function, beats in a frequency of 2 Hz, or two cycles per second.
Most electrical activity of the human body operates in the hertz range. Another important term is gauss, or milligauss (mG). This unit measures the intensity of the magnetic field. It was so named for the German astronomer and mathematician Karl Gauss. A milligauss is one one-thousandth of one gauss.
As an example, the earth has a natural magnetic field that has been measured to be about 0.5 gauss.
Since humans have been exposed to the earth’s natural magnetic field from the beginning of their existence this natural magnetic field is not harmful to the human body. However, power lines, electrical appliances, electrical wiring, cell phones, etc. all give off magnetic fields that are not natural to mankind. The intensity of these fields is expressed through the term milligauss.
Abnormalities in embryos can be produced from magnetic fields as little as one milligauss.(11)
Studies have shown a 500% increase in the risk of childhood leukemia, lymphomas and brain tumors in children exposed to power lines generating an electromagnetic field of only four milligauss.(12) Most scientists believe we should be exposed to no more than 1 mG.
Small handheld meters called gaussmeters can be purchased inexpensively to measure the electromagnetic field in the home and office. However, the gaussmeter only measures the intensity of the magnetic field. It does not measure the wireless signal or information-carrying radio wave. Hertz measures frequency and milligauss measures intensity. Keep those terms in mind as you read information about devices such as cell phones and common household appliances.
Fewer bars indicate a weaker signal. A weaker signal means the cell phone will generate more power to maintain the connection. In fact, for each bar lost due to poor signal strength the cell phone will increase its power by 1000% to maintain the connection.
More power means greater exposure to the radiation for the caller.
Ideally, always try to talk outdoors in an open space. This allows an easier connection from your cell phone to the nearest cell phone tower. The easier the connection the less power is needed to stay connected. Also, avoid making cell phone calls from cars, buses, trains, subways or airplanes.
These enclosures make the connection more difficult and also tend to concentrate the radiation within the enclosure.
This signal is a form of radiation, often called cell phone radiation. Cell phone radiation is one type of electromagnetic radiation, or EMR. Other types of EMR include radio frequencies (RF), microwaves (MW) and electromagnetic frequencies or EMFs.
There are other additional forms of radiation but these are the most common. This form of radiation is not the same as nuclear radiation or radiation from X-Rays.
Those forms of radiation are referred to as ionizing radiation because they contain enough energy to break chemical bonds in the body. The form of radiation to which we are referring is found in the very low-frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum and is generated from items such as televisions, AM and FM radio, radar, microwave communication devices, electrical wiring, power transmission lines and, of course, cell phones.
All electric and electronic devices produce some varying amounts of electromagnetic radiation, that is, they create both an electric and a magnetic field. There is overwhelming evidence of significant biological consequences from being exposed to these forms of radiation, including that from cell phones.
One of the problems is that cell phone radiation can’t be seen. It’s invisible. And for most people, it can’t be sensed or felt either.
We can’t see, feel or hear the thousands upon thousands of EMR frequencies that are continuously bombarding every cell in our body 24 hours a day. This explosion of wireless technology is drowning us in a sea of electropollution and cell phone radiation. This insidious and invisible toxin called electromagnetic radiation is wrecking havoc on our health. We think because it can’t be seen or felt it isn’t there. But, frankly, there isn’t a time during any day when we are not exposed to the damaging effects of electromagnetic radiation. In fact, never before in the history of civilization has this type of environment existed.
The United States, Canada, Western Europe and China emit so much EMR that it is even detectable by satellites in outer space.
Here’s How The Harm Happens
As the information from the ICRW contacts the vibrational receptors on the cell membrane the ICRW is recognized as a foreign invader and begins disrupting cell communication and function. Everyone is exposed to these ICRWs on a continual basis. When the body senses that a foreign invader is present it takes measures to protect itself. It does this by shutting down the active transport channels in the cell membrane and as a result the permeability of the cell membrane changes. Consequently, the nutrients that are in the space between the cells can’t get inside the cell to nourish it.
Because nutrients can’t get inside the cell membrane the cell suffers from a lack of nourishment.
Conversely, the toxins and free radicals that build up inside the cell as a part of our body’s normal metabolic processes can’t exit the cell properly. This build up of toxins and free radicals inside the cell damages and destroys mitochondria. The mitochondria are the organelles inside the cell that produce energy for the body in the form of ATP. When energy is not generated the cell cannot detoxify nor will it have energy to communicate with other cells.
Consequently, the vital cell-to-cell communication process is lost. When this communication is lost a basic physiological process is disrupted. Messages between cells aren’t sent, needed hormones and neurotransmitters are not secreted and the immune system can’t respond appropriately. As waste material and free radicals build up inside the cell mitochondria are damaged and cellular dysfunction ensues.
To illustrate the effect of this disruption think of the consequences to a group of cells that function to keep the blood-brain barrier closed. Those cells could no longer perform that task and leakage of the blood-brain barrier would occur. Indeed, leakage of the blood-brain barrier has been one of many findings in research. (13) The free radicals that build up inside the cell also interfere with the repair and replication of DNA. Many studies have shown the formation of micronuclei following exposure to information-carrying radio waves. (14)
Micronuclei are fragments of DNA that break off but still have the ability to form a cell membrane and replicate. Micronuclei are precursors to cancer formation and do not present a problem as long as they remain inside the cell. But when the damaged cells undergo their normal programmed cell death, called apoptosis, the contents of the cell, including micronuclei, are released.
Normally, the immune system, through the release of macrophages would rid the body of these improperly formed cells. But because the communication system has been disrupted the message to the immune system doesn’t arrive.
Now these micronuclei sit in a nutrient-rich environment and are free to clone.
And this is how the tumor begins.
Health Effects Are Linked To Electromagnetic Radiation
If these invisible EMR waves can move easily through the concrete walls of buildings, as we know they do, they will easily pass through the soft tissue of your body. Think about it. You can make a cell phone call from the basement of a building in New York City and easily connect to someone in a building in Los Angeles, CA.
That signal moves through many barriers and obstructions as it connects from one tower to the next.
And as this microwave signal moves invisibly through us the ICRW that is attached to it wrecks havoc on our biochemistry. Consequently, our society is becoming sicker and sicker.
In fact, numerous studies have linked long-term EMR exposure to increased risk for many, many conditions.
Here are a few:
The list of symptoms and conditions being linked to cell phone radiation and wireless technology is lengthy and this short list represents only a few of the conditions now linked to cell phone radiation and EMR.
Cell Phone Radiation Affects Hormones
When women were exposed to elevated levels of EMR overnight in the laboratory serum estrogen levels increased. Studies have shown that elevated estrogen levels are a risk for cancer development. Also, testosterone levels in men were reduced following exposure to EMR. Reduced testosterone levels have been linked to prostate and testicular cancers. Much is written today about the harmful effects of “estrogen mimickers” produced from the multitude of many chemicals and pollutants in the environment. Indeed, these products that mimic the effects of estrogen have a damaging effect on the body in terms of their disruption to proper hormonal balance.
Dr. Graham believes that electromagnetic radiation may fit the description of an endocrine disruptor better than many of the known environmental hormone mimickers. He feels this occurs because EMR appears to cause its effects by acting on and through hormones as opposed to acting as a hormone as mimickers do. For many years breast cancer patients all over the world have been prescribed a drug called tamoxifen as a means to prevent recurrence of breast cancer. In a study published in Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine in1998, it was shown that tamoxifen lost its ability to halt the proliferation of cancer cells when exposed to EMR. (36)
The amount of electromagnetic radiation used to produce this effect was only 12 milligauss. This amount of EMR is generated when commonly used appliances like hairdryers, vacuum cleaners, can openers, computers, microwave ovens, desk lamps, and electric clocks are in use in the home. Imagine the implications of this finding.
Women who were taking a drug to help prevent recurrence of breast cancer may have had their medication rendered useless by the exposure to EMR from common household appliances!
Studies have also shown that electromagnetic radiation inhibits the production of a hormone called melatonin.(37)
Melatonin regulates the sleep cycle and is secreted by the pineal gland in the brain. It is produced about 90 minutes after falling asleep. Consequently, melatonin levels rise at night and remain low during the day. Melatonin has many useful effects but the most common is that of regulating the sleep cycle.
When cell phone radiation, or other EMR, inhibits this important hormone the sleep cycle is compromised.
Common sense would say so. Why is this important? If the body doesn’t reach the deeper phases of sleep during the night it cannot repair itself. Cells will not have a chance to rejuvenate and repair. Sleep is necessary for this repair process to occur. Yet today 81% of young people 15 to 20 years of age sleep with their cell phone on! (38) Considering the value of melatonin to our health the implications of this statistic cannot be overstated. A study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found that a woman’s risk of breast cancer increased up to 60% if she routinely worked a nighttime shift. (39)
Men’s risk of prostate cancer also increased. How does this occur?
Light raises cortisol levels. Cortisol is produced by the adrenal gland which is activated by light. Light furthermore inhibits production of melatonin by the pineal gland in the brain. So the combination of increased cortisol, which suppresses our immune system, and decreased melatonin, which suppresses tumor development leads to conditions favorable for the potential development of cancer.
Melatonin is also a known regulator of estrogen. So when melatonin isn’t produced in adequate amounts one of the body’s natural mechanisms to suppress estrogen is removed and estrogen dominance results. Another important function of melatonin is that it is a powerful antioxidant and is very efficient in destroying free radicals. Destruction of free radicals and proper DNA synthesis allows our cells to function properly. One of the known effects of free radicals is premature aging and one of the ways free radicals are produced is from environmental toxins that include EMR. Melatonin also enhances the immune system. It does this is through its ability to increase the activity of the immune system’s killer lymphocytes. Additionally, melatonin also strengthens the ability of Vitamin D to stop tumor growth. In fact, the tumor-fighting ability of Vitamin D is strengthened by 20 to 100 times. (40) A study published in the Journal of Pineal Research in 2007 reported on the therapeutic effects of melatonin in treating cognitive impairment such as that found in Alzheimer’ disease, dementia, etc. Results showed significantly better improvement in patients treated with melatonin. (41)
As we can see melatonin is important for many reasons.
Any disruptive influence, like electromagnetic radiation, that would suppress or limit the body’s ability to produce melatonin could have serious health implications for each of us.
Findings showed that the cells’ signaling system was disrupted, impeding or preventing cell-to-cell communication. Thus, cells were not able to communicate effectively with each other and this affected their ability to respond to environmental challenges and threats. Perhaps one of the most important functions of melatonin is that it inhibits the release of estrogen and suppresses the development of breast cancer. (43) Seventy percent of breast cancers today are estrogen sensitive. When EMR inhibits the release of melatonin the activity of one of the body’s most protective hormones is lost.
Additionally, other studies have shown that reduced levels of melatonin from electromagnetic radiation suppression have caused a number of other malignancies including prostate cancer, melanoma, and ovarian cancer. A causal link between breast cancer and EMR continues to be reported. Dr. Patricia Coogan at Boston University of Public Health reported a forty-three per cent increased risk for breast cancer for women who worked in occupations where exposure to magnetic fields occurred. (44)
Such occupations included electricians, power line workers, phone installation workers, electrical engineers and those working near mainframe computers. This increased risk has been directly linked to the suppression of melatonin by EMR. There is also concern that this increased risk of breast cancer is not confined to women.
As much as a six-fold increase in male breast cancer has been found among men who work in the utilities industries, in switching stations and as telephone lineman. (45)
A recent study released by the prestigious Cleveland Clinic showed a link between poor sperm production and the number of hours a day a man uses a cell phone.
Men who use a cell phone more than four hours a day had significantly worse sperm counts and the quality of sperm was substantially diminished.(46)
Doctors believe this damage may be caused by radiation emitted by cell phones. Men who used a cell phone more than four hours a day had sperm counts that were 25 percent lower than men who never used a cell phone. (47)
Additionally, sperm quality was adversely affected. The swimming ability of the sperm was reduced markedly. Furthermore, a 50 percent drop in the number of properly formed sperm was noted. (48) Sperm count, motility, viability and appearance all were significantly affected. It is advisable for men (and women) not to carry a cell phone on a belt clip or in a pocket close to the body.
Neither should anyone work on a laptop computer while resting it on the lap.
This filtering membrane keeps toxins and damaging proteins that might be found in the blood from coming in contact with sensitive brain tissue. Research has shown that talking on a cell phone for as little as two minutes will disable the blood-brain barrier. (49)
In studies done by neurologist Dr. Leif Salford it was found that toxins and harmful proteins can pass out of the blood and into the brain while the cell phone is switched on.
It is noteworthy that diseases such as multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s are linked to unwanted proteins being found in the brain.
It’s Like Driving While Drunk
Additionally, University of Toronto investigators found that the impaired effects of a cell phone call made while driving will persist up to 15 minutes after completing the call. (50) The effect was the same whether the driver used a hands-free headset or not.
Many countries are now moving to join England, Spain, Israel, Switzerland, and Brazil in restricting or banning cell phone use by drivers.
When the body experiences a stress event the “flight or fight” response is triggered. Certain stress hormones are released from the adrenal glands, the first of which is adrenaline. Most of us are familiar with the effects of adrenaline: rapid heart rate, increased energy level, increased blood pressure, muscle contraction, rapid breathing, etc. These effects are not harmful if they only occur for a short period of time.
But what about a stress response that continually releases adrenaline such as that occurring from constant exposure to cell phone radiation? Obviously, this would not be healthy over a long period of time.
The second chemical released in the stress response by the adrenal gland is a hormone called cortisol. Cortisol is the body’s natural form of cortisone. It is necessary for many maintenance functions of everyday life. When our bodies are chronically stressed increased amounts of cortisol are released.
Consequently, high amounts of cortisol suppress the immune system, blood sugar levels rise and insomnia can occur. Finally, after long-term continual stress responses the adrenal glands become tired and fatigued. Consequently, the ability to respond to stress situations appropriately becomes compromised.
Irritability, fatigue, anger, road rage, high blood pressure, loss of blood sugar control, decreased thyroid function and weight gain are a few of the many symptoms that can result from this condition.
Miscarriages and High Blood Pressure Caused By EMR
A German study, published in The Lancet, reported that blood pressure was elevated in a group of volunteers when cell phones were randomly turned on and off without the participants knowledge. (51)
Miscarriages have also been linked to electromagnetic radiation exposure.
In one of the many studies that have been conducted in this area one thousand pregnant women were shown to have a 180% increased risk for miscarriage when exposed to intermittent magnetic fields as low as 16 milligauss. (52) We Can’t Escape the Radiation Researchers have shown that one doesn’t have to own a cell phone to be exposed to electromagnetic radiation.
There are so many cell phones users surrounding each of us who are making calls on their cell phones that we are constantly being exposed as those cell phones connect with the cell phone towers and other callers. Plus, there are now wireless networks everywhere. And it’s worse than second-hand smoke because these radio waves are invisible.
You may not own a cell phone or use one very often. But there is always someone around you using a cell phone or wireless network. And those cell phones and wireless networks are emitting signals, or radiation, to maintain their connection. So the signals are everywhere and each and every one of us is caught in the crossfire.
There simply is no way to escape it.
How was this allowed?
Normally, any consumer device that emits radiation would be required to go through specific safety testing to determine if there would be any risk to the population.
But based on information from the cell phone industry the cell phone became exempt from any such testing. The information provided by the cell phone industry to the government at that time stated that the only harm that could come from this type of radiation had to do with the heating effect on biological tissues.
Because cell phones operated at such a very low power it was not possible for them to heat biological tissue.
Therefore, the government excluded cell phones from the requirement of doing any pre-market safety testing. The microwave oven was used as the example in the cell phone industry’s claim. The microwave oven produces microwaves, i.e. radiation, that oscillate at a very high frequency. These microwaves are also driven by a very high source of power.
When a food item is placed in a microwave oven it causes the water molecules in the food to move very rapidly. This increased activity produces friction that, in turn, produces heat. When this occurs long enough food will cook. It’s a fairly simple process. Obviously, exposing the human body to those microwaves wouldn’t be wise since the heating effect would eventually heat and destroy human tissue.
So to make the microwave radiation used by cell phones safe the cell phone manufacturers simply lowered the power used to drive those frequencies. Since the power used by cell phones was so much lower than a microwave oven the heating effect did not take place.
Therefore, the cell phone was presumed to be safe. The rationale was that if only a small amount of power was used and it wasn’t strong enough to heat human tissue then no damage would occur. No heat, no harm. And that was the assumption that was used by the federal government to allow cell phones to be sold and manufactured.
Current standards for safe radiation exposure are based solely on this heating, or thermal effect. No testing was ever done to evaluate whether or not the frequencies themselves might be harmful. This was left to chance discovery. It is a giant experiment that every cell phone user is participating in today.
We now know that the mechanism causing damage is not a thermal or heating effect issue but is something more subtle and even more damaging.
During the show Mr. Reynard unleashed a bombshell that ignited one of the most shocking controversies in television history.
He stated that he was filing a lawsuit against the cell phone companies and was alleging that his wife, Susan, had died from a brain tumor caused by repeated use of a cell phone. This allegation caused cellular stocks to quickly tumble. Congressional inquiries were triggered and the cell phone industry scrambled to save its image.
In an effort to reassure the public and the government the cell phone industry agreed to conduct long-term research studies to prove that cell phones were safe. Following public hearings the Senate took issue with both the cell phone industry and with the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA was the agency of responsibility for granting approval of cell phones. To settle the allegations and bring proof to the issue the cell phone industry volunteered to conduct long-term research to prove cell phone safety.
However, they offered to do so only if the FDA agreed not to regulate them until the research was completed. And so the process began. As a first step, the cell phone industry hired appropriate medical and science researchers to conduct a study that was to become the largest of its kind ever conducted on cell phone safety. The cell phone industry funded this research project with $28.5 million of its own money.
The protocol required that every study conducted to be duplicated in at least two laboratories. Research protocols were peer reviewed before being initiated. Furthermore, preliminary data were peer reviewed before interpretation and final reports and data were peer reviewed at the conclusion of the process.
Every effort was made to ensure the study was above reproach and that the results of the study were credible and not biased due to industry funding.
The Deadly Facts from the Cell Phone Industry’s Own Study
The following summary is quoted directly from that report:
In other words, the research found genetic damage, leakage of the blood-brain barrier, cellular dysfunction and a tripling in the risk of rare neuroepithelial tumors and rare brain tumors in people using cell phones versus those who did not use cell phones.
In fact, the tumors even correlated to the side of the head where the subjects reported using the phone most often. In all, over 56 studies were funded by the cell phone industry and over 200 scientists and doctors from around the world participated. The research findings were reported to the cell phone industry executives with the suggestion that the industry inform the public and allow users to begin to take precautionary steps until more research could be done. A detailed account of the whole story can be found in a book that chronicled the events that took place.
The book, titled Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age can be found at most book stores. The shocking part of this whole process is that in spite of the concrete peer-reviewed findings produced by this research the cell phone industry chose not to go public with the information. And there’s more.
Robert Kane, PhD., former Motorola Senior Research Scientist and Technical Staff Member, said this,
He went on to say,
Translation: Cell phone radiation bombards you whether you are making calls yourself or not.
You can be driving in your car, eating in a restaurant, watching a game or attending a concert and you’ll be irradiated from someone else’s cell phone calls whether you know it or not. There is no escape. It’s not just the caller’s brain that gets irradiated; it’s everyone around the caller, too.
This information comes straight from one of Motorola’s top former research scientists.
It is a complex measurement of how much radiation passes through tissue during a specified time period. In other words, it measures the level of absorption of EMR by the body. When biological tissues absorb EMR it can lead to the distortion of cellular function.
Up until 1993 no one had ever observed that there were any heating effects occurring at SAR levels below 40 watts per kilogram. Cell phones operate at a power of about 0.6 watts and yield a SAR value of less than 2 watts per kilogram which appears to be a safe level. Again, this was the rationale used when the government exempted cell phones from any pre-market testing and any form of regulation.
As long as SARs were this low and no heating effect took place it was assumed that no harm could be done to biological tissue by a cell phone. We now know this to be an erroneous assumption. All cell phones today have a published SAR value. It varies slightly from phone model to phone model. However, knowing the SAR number of your phone is of minimal value since all phones manufactured today must meet the FCC established standard of 1.6 watts/kg or below. That said, it’s still a good idea to purchase a cell phone with a SAR value as low as possible to minimize the absorption of radiation when the cell phone is near the head.
But SAR only measures the intensity of the electromagnetic field. Keep in mind that SAR does not measure the pulsating or oscillatory action of the wave. For example, the wave frequency or pulse could be low enough to mimic the electrical activity of the brain itself and thereby cause damage but the cell phone could still have a low SAR value. So knowing the SAR would be of little value in this case.
SARs may have a useful application for microwave ovens but they simply are not adequate for cell phones, as the heating effect doesn’t occur until SARs reach 20 to 25 watts per kilogram. It is also important to understand that SARs in no way address the mechanism of damage being caused by the Information-Carrying Radio Wave.
The SAR value for your specific phone can be found by visiting the FCC website or by visiting www.sarvalues.com The Truth about Headsets Headsets have been promoted as being an effective method to reduce exposure to EMR being generated by the cell phone.
Since the near-field plume of radiation from a cell phone emanates out a distance of six to seven inches from the cell phone’s antenna it becomes necessary to either,
In evaluating the effectiveness of headsets we must keep in the mind the two mechanisms of harm that are created by cell phones.
Both of these mechanisms cause harm to the body.
Using a headset will certainly reduce the exposure to the near-field plume. But the headset does nothing to reduce the damage being caused by the information-carrying radio wave. Neither does the speakerphone function.
Furthermore, not all headsets are safe to use. Many wired headsets actually attract radiation to the head by acting as an antenna, i.e., the wires of headsets can actually draw surrounding radiation in the immediate area to the head.
In fact, it has been reported that wired headsets can increase the radiation exposure to the head by 300 times! (53)
Air-tube headsets do help in this regard but they still do nothing to address the harm being caused by the information-carrying radio wave. If you must use a headset use an air-tube headset. At least this way you address one of the harm mechanisms by avoiding the “antenna effect” created by wired headsets. Just remember though, headsets don’t protect against the information-carrying radio wave.
They can’t be relied upon for complete protection.
Here’s why.
Bluetooth technology is wireless technology in which a wired connection has been replaced with a receiver and transmitter and this connection communicates on a 2.4 gigahertz frequency. This is the same frequency used by a microwave oven. However, the power used to send these frequencies is very low. In fact, the signal strength is only about 1 milliwatt of power, whereas a cell phone can operate on a signal of up to three watts. (54)
So the lower power used by Bluetooth technology limits range to around 30 feet. But here’s the problem. When the earpiece is worn on the head it is on continually. And although the power is less the radiation exposure is constant even when no conversation is occurring. At least with a cell phone you lay the phone down when the conversation is concluded. Not so with a Bluetooth earpiece.
Secondly, this is a wireless connection. From what has been said about how cell phone radiation harms us we know that when we talk or send information over a Bluetooth connection of any kind we’re being exposed to the information-carrying radio wave. And it is this wave that does the damage. So, Bluetooth devices are not any safer than non-wireless devices and, in fact, can be more dangerous due to the continual exposure of radiation to the head. Here’s something else to question.
These are questions that remain unanswered.
Here’s why. A cordless phone utilizes a base station for its operation. This base station acts like a mini-cell phone tower sitting in the home or office. The base station continuously emits a pulsing microwave at full power as long as it’s plugged in to an electrical outlet. It does this so that it can maintain a signal with the handset(s).
This means that everyone in the home or office is exposed to the continual broadcasting of microwaves whether the phone is in use or not. Newer cordless phones now use newer technology called DECT technology, which stands for Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications. The signal from a DECT phone broadcasts at a 2.4 or 5.8 gigahertz transmission continuously.
This continuous transmission of frequencies on DECT phones is what makes them different from older models. And since many cordless phones are often placed near the bedside on a nightstand individuals sleeping near them are constantly being exposed to a pulsing electromagnetic wave that has an electrical field strength of about 6.5 volts per meter (56)
What’s the significance of this?
A New Zealand study reported a significant increase in both chronic fatigue and sleep problems in residents living near an AM and FM radio tower (57). The highest field strength taken from the tower was 2.66 volts/meter, which was significantly less than that of the DECT cordless phone.
Another study from Schwarzenburg, Switzerland reported that 55% of residents living near a short-wave radio transmitter reported symptoms of disturbed sleep and 35% reported full insomnia. (58)
The researches were able to turn the transmitter on and off on different nights. Symptoms were greatly reduced when the transmitters were off. The German Federal Radiation Protection Agency stated that a cordless DECT phone is often the strongest single source of radiation in a private home.
The Freiberger Appeal of October 2002, a document signed by over 130 medical practitioners from the German environmental medicine medical organization called IGUMED, has called for a ban on DECT phones in preschools, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and public buildings.
Baby Monitors Can Harm Your Child
Some scientists are saying this is an unnecessary exposure to radiation. The radiation generated from some baby monitors can reach up to six volts per meter which is twice as strong as radiation found within 100 meters of cell phone towers. (59)
The British consumer group Powerwatch has urged parents to stop using DECT baby monitors.
What about Cell Phone Towers?
As more and more of these are installed to increase coverage and to power new applications the ocean of electropollution to which we are exposed will only continue to thicken. Cell towers and antennas are popping up everywhere. In the United States there are now more than 1,947,000 towers and antennas currently online.
Towers are the structures on which antennas are placed and multiple antennas may be attached to a single tower. The antenna is the actual emitter of the radio signal. Antennas are placed not only on towers but also on fires stations, churches, schools, cemeteries, and even in our national parks.
Did you know there’s a cell tower near Old Faithful in Yellowstone Park? And to make them esthetically pleasing to the environment antenna towers are often disguised.
It’s not uncommon to see cell phone towers in the southwest that look like palm trees, for example. These towers and antennas are often hidden, too, in places like church steeples or placed on rooftops where they can’t be seen. Can’t sleep well in a hotel at night? There may be an antenna tower hidden on the roof. As explained earlier, each cell phone tower emits its signal in a circular pattern that would look much like a flower petal if it were visible.
In other words, the pattern spreads itself 360 degrees around the tower in a circle. This “circle” around the tower is called a “cell” and this is where the term “cell” in cell phone gets its name. When under the umbrella of the “cell” good reception is maintained. When out of this cell area the reception is poor.
Cell phone towers, then, are positioned throughout the countryside in such a way that these “cells” overlap one another so that, ideally, one is never out of coverage anywhere.
Santini et al. found significant health problems in people living within 300 meters of a cell phone base station or tower. The recommendation was made from the study that cell phone base stations should not be placed closer than 300 meters to populated areas. Pathol Biol (Paris) 2002; 50: 369-373.
All test subjects indicated they felt unwell while radiated and some reported being seriously ill. According to the scientists doing the study, this is the first worldwide proof of significant changes of the electrical currents in the brain, as measured by EEG, by a cell phone base station at a distance of 80 meters.
Subjects reported symptoms such as buzzing in the head, tinnitus, palpitations of the heart, lightheadedness, anxiety, shortness of breath, nervousness, agitation, headache, heat sensation and depression.
Cell phone companies pay organizations handsomely to install cell tower equipment on these properties. This eliminates the need for the cell phone company to lease or purchase land or buildings to erect their own towers. They can simply rent existing structures from someone else. This “rent money” can range from a few hundred dollars to several thousand dollars a month.
What school district or church couldn’t use a few extra dollars to benefit a tight budget? But does the income outweigh the potential risk? The studies say absolutely not. Two-time Nobel Prize nominee, Dr. Gerald Hyland, a physicist, had this to say about cell phone towers.
Children Have Higher Rates of Leukemia Near Broadcast Towers
So if cell phone companies install antennas on the rooftops of our schools,
Many studies show a definite correlation. Living Near Cell Phone Towers Increases Neurological Symptoms
A veterinary school in Hanover, Germany, reports that dairy cows kept in close proximity to a cell phone tower for two years had a substantial reduction in milk production in addition to other health problems including abnormal behavior patterns. (63)
Our Communities Can’t Stop Cell Phone Tower Construction
The Federal Communications Act of 1996 was a landmark bill that mandated rapid development of wireless infrastructure across the country. Section 704 of this act made it virtually impossible for communities to stop the construction of cell phone towers in their areas in spite of threats to public health and the environment.
This law forbids local governments from stepping in and stopping the construction of cell phone towers based on health concerns or environmental concerns. It is unfortunate that our leaders have been pressured by cell phone lobbyists to pass legislation where communities and local governments no longer have control over what is best for their community. We have relegated complete control of this matter over to the cell phone companies.
The government even allowed the cell phone industry to help write the law. Here’s the quote from the Federal Communications Act of 1996 that prohibits states, neighborhoods and communities from installing cell phone towers:
Firefighters Vote To Suspend Cell Tower Construction on Fire Stations
The union’s Health and Safety Department completed their review of the available science in April 2005. They concluded that there is sufficient evidence to oppose any installation of cell phone antennas on fire stations. This conclusion was supported by a position paper citing 49 references and 40 citations.
Some of the effects experienced by fire fighters due to this exposure included vertigo, lack of focus, severe headaches, sleep deprivation, depression, slowed reaction times and tremors. (64)
Find Out How Many Towers and Antennas Are Near Your Home
Find out by visiting the website www.antennasearch.com.
Type in your address and you’ll get a listing and a map of all the towers and antennas within a short radius of your address. You’ll be surprised to learn how prevalent these towers and antennas are and how many are sitting right in your back yard. For example, in one square mile of downtown Manhattan there are about 2500 antennas. And let’s don’t forget the more than 2000 communications satellites floating around in outer space. They shower the planet continually with radiation. Got a new GPS device? How do you think it works?
It gets its information from a satellite that knows where we are and where we want to go. It then beams the instructions down and off we go without a second thought that we are being irradiated by the radio signal of this convenience.
Remember the information-carrying radio wave (ICRW) discussed earlier? It’s being created here, too. And let’s don’t forget all military projects. I think you get the picture.
The amount of electropollution we’re subjected to on a daily basis is staggering and is growing by the day.
Effects of Cell Phone Radiation on Children Are Worse Than Adults
Here’s why.
A child’s head is smaller yet contains more fluid than that of an adult. This increased amount of water acts as conductor of the radiation. Furthermore, the skull bones in the head of a child don’t fully harden until about 22 years of age. So the skull bones of a child’s head are softer and thinner. Softer bones mean greater penetration of radiation into the head. Greater penetration means more damage.
And remember, there is an accumulation of this radiation as children grow.
Radiation Penetrates the Head of Children
Her pictures are frightening. Figure 1 Children obviously have smaller body masses.
When exposed to the same amount of radiation as an adult the harmful effects of the radiation will be greater. Children have a smaller body mass, softer skull bones and more fluid in the head. All allow more damage to occur. Studies at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, found that children who were exposed to radiation as low as one milligauss (1mG) over long periods of time have twice the normal risk of developing leukemia. (65) The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) issued a report in May of 2000 stating that,
Heavy Absorption of Cell Phone Radiation into the Head
This is especially concerning as we watch children and teenagers using cell phones on a continual basis. Children today will be exposed to this type of radiation for a much longer period over their lifetime than their parents.
Thus, the exposure risk is much greater.
Disney and Sprint Market Cell Phones to Children
They see children as the next big cell phone “market.” For example, Disney and Sprint recently joined in a $2 billion deal to market cell phones to kids between eight and 12 years of age.
Other companies have followed suit promoting similar programs. Teddyfone Ltd. in the United Kingdom has launched a cell phone that looks like a teddy bear. Their target market is children six to eight years old. The American counterpart to this phone is called the Firefly.
Of course there’s a Barbie™ phone available now, too.
Our Children Will Be Affected Most
Sir William Stewart, Chairman of the UK Health Protection Agency, issued this statement at a press conference in 2005. He went on to say that no child under the age of nine should use a cell phone, and anyone under sixteen should use one only for emergency calls. We don’t know what the long-term effects of cell phone radiation are to children.
Tumors can take 15 to 20 years to develop and by then it’s often too late to treat. We must ask ourselves if we want our children to participate in this giant experiment. Certainly, protection, prevention and limiting exposure is a must until science can confirm the danger or confer safety on these products of convenience. Evidence in medical science continues to mount that radiation from devices such as cell phones, cordless phones, and WiFi produces dangerous and damaging health effects. The time for action is now.
The lives of our children could depend on it.
Currently, there are seven class action lawsuits that have been filed and are active against the cell phone manufacturers.
In the fall of 2005 five of those cases were reviewed by the Supreme Court as the cell phone industry asked for the cases to be dismissed. The Supreme Court however ruled that there was enough evidence for the cases to move forward. Those cases are currently in the active process of working their way through the legal system. In addition, there are numerous active individual cases that have been filed where brain cancer development has allegedly occurred due to cell phone use. One workman’s compensation case in California has already been ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The court ruled that there was substantial evidence that the plaintiff’s brain tumor had been caused by excessive use of the cell phone in her line of work. She won her petition.
No doubt this will set an important precedent in cases to follow.
This has forced the cell phone industry to become self-insured. The implication here is that the cell phone industry does not have any insurance to cover losses incurred in any litigation processes.
Once their money runs out no more money would be available to pay a judgment. When Lloyds of London refuses to insure they don’t turn hefty premiums down for no reason.
Obviously, they felt the risk was too great.
Verizon’s New Contracts
The customer also agrees not to participate in any class action lawsuit. Suggestion: take the time to read the fine print of your carrier’s contract.
Think twice before signing it. Cell Phone Industry Is In a Predicament
Scientific studies continue to be published that say otherwise. So why doesn’t the cell phone industry just purchase available safety technology that would make the cell phone safe to use?
If that happened it would be an admission of guilt or an admission that there may be a health problem with cell phone usage. The addition of such technology would underscore their guilt and they would immediately lose all lawsuits, past and present.
So the cell phone companies have no choice now but to deny any problems exist.
However, it is best summed up with this quote taken directly from the FDA website:
Here is why the government won’t say much publicly about cell phone safety.
Cell phones are big business. Telecommunication technology stocks comprise a huge percentage of our financial markets. Any mention of a safety problem would cause a catastrophic plunge in the stock market. Secondly, cell phone minutes are the second largest consumer product revenue producer for the federal government.
Only gasoline generates more revenue from consumers. Imagine what would happen if the FDA or FCC issued a statement that there just might be a safety issue with cell phones. The sell-off of these stocks would be huge. The stock market would tumble. The government would lose an important source of revenue and our economy would be crippled. Such an announcement would be disastrous.
So the government will be very reluctant to issue any statement of warning or suggestion that cell phones may pose a hazard.
Remember that it took decades for the government to respond to the early warnings about tobacco, asbestos, and X-Rays. Cell phones haven’t been around for very long and the technology is relatively new.
However, it may benefit us to take a quick look back at history and learn a lesson. The tobacco time line:
The X-Ray time line:
The Asbestos time line:
There is no question that EMR and cell phone radiation is a potential carcinogen.
The evidence to support the toxicity and carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation is overwhelming. Current safety standards are archaic and do not address the issues created by current technology in use today.
As seen from these timelines it took many, many decades and untold casualties before those carcinogens were ever properly addressed. Cell phone radiation is a much bigger toxin than tobacco, X-Rays or asbestos due to the sheer numbers of people that use cell phones and wireless technology. Consequently, the numbers of people now being affected is enormous.
There isn’t enough time for us to wait for our government or industry to come to the realization that a problem exists. We know that they will be reluctant to make such an admission. Reasonable precautions must be taken now. The evidence is before us. Research studies tell us there is a problem. We can’t wait until industry and government are forced to admit it.
We did that with tobacco, X-Rays and asbestos. The question is this:
Guidelines for Protection and Prevention What can we do to protect ourselves? What steps can be taken to minimize our exposure and risk?
Since wireless technology is here to stay the problem of protection must be approached in two ways.
Here are some things that can be done right now.
By eating healthy and exercising the biofield and immune system will be strengthened. This will minimize the damaging effects of EMR and cell phone radiation exposure.
Healthy eating and proper hydration will also allow for quicker repair of damage already done.
If you are not sure of what type of device to use or what type of technology works I would be happy to share my information and opinions with you from the research and reading I have done on available technology. Wireless technology is perhaps the greatest convenience of our time. Yet it could also prove to be the greatest toxin we have ever created.
Thank you for your interest in learning more about this growing problem in our society. Educate and protect those close to you. And please join me in informing those in your circle of influence.
Your questions and comments are welcomed and you are free to . References
|
Ondes : serons-nous tous bientôt atteints d’électrosensibilité ?
francetvinfo.fr
Une proposition de loi EELV vise à faire preuve de « sobriété » dans l’exposition aux ondes et aux champs électromagnétiques, alors que les personnes disant en souffrir seraient de plus en plus nombreuses.
Par Catherine Fournier
On les appelle les EHS. Les électrohypersensibles sont ces personnes qui affirment souffrir d’une allergie aux ondes et aux champs électromagnétiques. Elle se terrent chez elles ou en « zone blanche », à l’abri de toute exposition aux objets émetteurs (antenne-relais, téléphones portables, bornes wifi…). Dans leur proposition de loi examinée jeudi 23 janvier à l’Assemblée, des députés EELV demandent à ce que l’électrosensibilité soit définie dans le Code de l’environnement.
Les symptômes (brûlures et picotements, maux de tête, vertiges, nausées…) peuvent-ils toucher un jour une plus grande partie de la population ? Sont-ils sous-estimés ? Alors que le niveau d’exposition augmente, avec notamment le déploiement de la 4G, francetv info a interrogé les différents acteurs mobilisés sur la question. Tour d’horizon.
Une pathologie encore non reconnue en France
Si l’hypersensibilité électromagnétique est considérée comme un handicap en Suède, un débat est toujours en cours sur la reconnaissance et l’explication de cette pathologie en France. Alors que l’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS) lui consacre un article sur son site depuis 2005, il a fallu attendre 2009 pour que le ministère de la Santé français se saisisse du problème. A l’issue du Grenelle des ondes, Roselyne Bachelot, alors ministre de la Santé, a annoncé le lancement d’une étude clinique autour ce trouble, confiée à une équipe de l’hôpital Cochin dirigée par le professeur Dominique Choudat. Lancée en février 2012, celle-ci est toujours en cours, et a donné lieu à la mise en place d’une vingtaine de centres de consultations en France, listés sur ce site consacré à l’électrosensibilité.
De son côté, l’Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’environnement (Anses) a annoncé le lancement d’une étude spécifique sur la question. « On attend des résultats, et notre groupe de travail va s’emparer de la question en novembre, pour des conclusions espérées fin 2014-début 2015 », expliquait Olivier Merckel, chercheur à l’agence, à francetv info. En octobre dernier, l’Anses a également publié un rapport sur les effets des ondes sur la santé, et pointé de possibles conséquences biologiques (modifications de l’organisme), sans toutefois qu’un lien avec une pathologie ne soit établi. L’agence sanitaire notait en revanche un « développement spectaculaire et permanent des technologies et des usages ».
Des centaines de personnes en consultation
Le monde médical est divisé sur la question. Un rapport sénatorial publié en 2010 résume la démarche du professeur Choudat, qui privilégie une approche psychiatrique de l’électrosensibilité. Ce que fustigent les associations. « Aucune anomalie physiologique pouvant expliquer ces symptômes n’a pu être mise en évidence », peut-on lire dans ce document. Ces symptômes peuvent ainsi être consécutifs à « une situation dangereuse ou malsaine, ou à un choc ». « Une thérapie cognitive et comportementale est alors adaptée », est-il précisé.
« Ces troubles n’ont rien de psychiatrique », rétorque Laurent Chevallier, médecin nutritionniste contacté par francetv info. En 2012, il a lancé sa consultation de médecine environnementale dans une clinique de Montpellier, et reçoit des patients EHS. Assisté d’un neurologue, il a examiné environ 150 personnes. Et constaté que « 80% d’entre elles étaient migraineuses ». Selon lui, cette cause physiologique peut constituer « une vulnérabilité préalable » au développement d’une électrohypersensibilité. En l’absence d’étude plus approfondie sur le déclenchement de la pathologie, il propose tout de même un traitement à ses patients.
Autre consultation ouverte en marge de celles lancées sous la direction du professeur Choudat : le professeur de cancérologie Dominique Belpomme a déjà examiné 600 patients EHS en quatre ans dans une clinique parisienne. « A l’aide de tests, dont un écho-Doppler cérébral, nous avons notamment découvert que tous les EHS présentent un manque d’oxygène dans le cerveau, assure-t-il au Monde. Nous proposons un traitement, qui marche dans 15 % des cas. » Mais là encore, difficile à cette échelle de tirer des conclusions sur l’origine de ces troubles.
« On est au tout début de l’histoire »
Pour les députés écologistes auteurs de la proposition de loi, il est urgent et prioritaire de mener une étude d’envergure sur les problèmes d’électrohypersensibilté. « La France est très mauvaise pour recenser les pathologies. En cause, notre faible culture de prévention en matière de santé », regrette auprès de francetv info François de Rugy, coprésident du groupe EELV à l’Assemblée. En matière d’ondes, « on est au tout début de l’histoire », estime-t-il, redoutant que de plus en plus de personnes se déclarent EHS.
Selon l’élu, il faut commencer par « identifier clairement les sources d’exposition aux ondes, largement sous-estimées. On ne parle que des antennes-relais mais leurs émissions sont loin d’être les seules ou les plus fortes ». « Tous les appareils, et pas seulement les téléphones portables, doivent ensuite faire l’objet d’une information sur leur niveau d’émission », ajoute-t-il.
Du côté des associations, on s’alarme de voir les sources d’exposition se multiplier, à l’extérieur comme à l’intérieur : « 90% des pollutions sont générées par les particuliers eux-mêmes à leur domicile, y compris à la campagne », évalue le président d’Une terre pour les EHS, Philippe Tribaudeau.
Une ampleur comparable à celle des allergies ?
Téléphone portable, téléphone sans fil, tablette, box, wifi, transformateurs électriques… « A force d’être exposé, et vu la vitesse à laquelle se développe la 4G, tout le monde risque de devenir plus ou moins électrosensible », prévient le militant associatif, comparant le phénomène à celui des allergies, qui touchent de plus en plus de Français. Il affirme avoir reçu « une avalanche de contacts » depuis six mois et note que le profil des EHS évolue : « Maintenant, ce sont des familles entières qui sont concernées. » En un mois, la carte interactive mise en ligne par l’association a recensé près de 900 EHS.
Joint par francetv info, Marc Cendrier, chargé de l’information scientifique de l’ONG Robin des toits, estime que le nombre de personnes atteintes d’électrosensibilité en France est sans doute comparable aux proportions évaluées en Suède, soit « environ 4% d’EHS déclarés [dans la population] et 10% si on ajoute ceux qui s’ignorent ». Une proportion « en croissance permanente en raison de la généralisation des émissions », selon lui, qui prédit « une catastrophe », tant sur le plan sanitaire qu’économique.
Si le ton est bien évidemment beaucoup plus mesuré du côté du gouvernement, Fleur Pellerin, la ministre déléguée à l’Economie numérique, semble avoir pris la mesure des enjeux. Comme le rappelle Le Parisien (article abonnés), celle qui mettait en garde contre les « peurs irrationnelles » liées aux ondes voici un an soutient aujourd’hui la proposition de loi des écologistes, qui « pose le principe de modération ».
Lettre ouverte aux Responsables publics et aux Médias
Rédigée par un groupe d’électroHyperSensibles SDF
Des conditions de vie très éprouvantes
Pour une information de qualité et une prise de leurs responsabilités par les pouvoirs publics
Reconnaître enfin cette intoxication et pathologie environnementales
La création de lieux adaptés est urgente
Vers des thérapies et des lieux de soins adaptés
Informer et sensibiliser la population
Témoignage d’une EHS
Tél. : 33 1 47 00 96 33
« Le rayonnement du sans fil cause de cancer » revèlent les conclusions d’une nouvelle étude scientifique
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2464179
.
LOS ANGELES, CA, le 10 Février 2015
NACST entreprend cette action suite à la publication de 2 récentes études indiquant qu’il y a des preuves suffisantes démontrant que l’exposition au rayonnement des sans fil, également connue sous l’appellation Radio Fréquences et Champs Electro- Magnétiques, sont cause de cancer.
Les modems sans fil et les appareils comme les Ipads, téléphones portables, ordinateurs portables, babyphones et les téléphones sans fils, tous émettent ce type de rayonnement.
Etat de la Science :Le débat est clos. l’Oncologue Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD et le Statisticien Michael Carlberg de l’Hopital Universitaire d’Obrero, en Suède ont trouvé un risque de cancer 3 fois plus élevé après 25 ans ou plus d’utilisation de téléphones sans fil dans une étude publiée en Octobre 2014 dans la revue Pathophysiology: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pathophys.2014.10.001.
Un élément significatif a été la découverte que les personnes ayant utilisé un portable ou un téléphone sans fil avant l’age de 20 ans présentaient le risque le plus élevé. Les auteurs démontrent que les Radio-Fréquences et les Champs Electro-Magnétiques doivent être considérés comme carcinogène pour les êtres humains exigeant une révision urgente des recommandations actuelles en matière d’exposition.
Cette étude fait suite à l’étude de cas controlés CERENAT de juillet 2014 » publiée dans la revue « Occupational and Environmental Medicine » dans laquelle des chercheurs français ont trouvé une augmentation du cancer du cerveau multipliée par 3 après 896 heures ou plus d’utilisation d’un téléphone sans fil au long cours : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24816517.
Tenant compte de l’accumulation des recherches démontrant les effets sanitaires des rayonnements des sans fil, le Professeur Olle Johansson PhD du département de neuroscience de Karolinska a conclu : le débat est clos.
Les Scientifiques demandent à l’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé de reclassifier les RF et CEM. En 2011 l’Agence Internationale pour la Recherche sur la Cancer (IARC) de l’OMS avait classé les radiations des Radio Fréquences des sans fil Carcinogène 2B. Depuis 2011, plusieurs des scientifiques de l’OMS dont Anthony Miller MD, FRCP, FACE ont appelé à une reclassification des technologies sans fil à un niveau de risque plus élevé.
L’étude Hardell de 2014 démontre que les radiations des radio Fréquences devraient être concernées par le groupe 1 « cancérogène avéré », les situant dans la même catégorie que le tabac ou l’amiante.
L’initiative « Turn It Off 4 Kids » de l’association Nationale pour la sécurité des technologies utilisées par les enfants (NACST) en appelle aux organisations de prévention du cancer et de santé pédiatrique pour faire du sujet de la santé des enfants face aux expositions des radiations des technologies sans fil dans les instances éducatives une priorité immédiate pour 2015.
1 – Demander que toutes nouvelles technologies à l’école soit filaire
2 – Demander le remplacement des technologies sans fils existantes par le filaire
3 – Demander que le public soit informé des mesures simples permettant de réduire leur exposition , surtout pour les enfants et les femmes enceintes
4 – Eduquer les membres de ces organisations et leurs publics sur les effets sanitaires des radiations sans fil grâce à des emails, des sites web, et des supports mis à jours.
Le groupe d’expert soutenant l’Initiative de l’association NACST comprend 20 éminents scientifiques, physiciens et avocats des questions sécuritaires dont Drs. Lennart Hardell, Olle Johansson, Anthony Miller and Dariusz Leszczynski. Le Dr. Leszczynski scientifique faisant partie du comité de l’OMS/ IARC sur les RF-CEM et cancer, et le Dr. Miller ayant occupé le poste de Directeur de l’Unité d’Epidémiologie au sein de l’Institut National du Cancer de Toronto – Canada.
. « Etant donné les études émergentes et celles attestées, cela doit conduire à fournir aux étudiants un environnement d’apprentissage sain, libre de tout rayonnement des sans fil. a conclu un Co-fondateur de l’association NACST.
Wireless Radiation Causes Cancer New Scientific Findings Reveal
LOS ANGELES, CA, February 10, 2015 /24-7PressRelease/ —
NACST is taking action after two recently published studies indicate there is sufficient evidence demonstrating exposure to wireless radiation, also known as RF-EMF, causes cancer.
Wireless routers and devices such as iPads, cell phones, laptops, baby monitors and cordless phones all emit this type of radiation. State of the Science: The Debate is Over Professor of Oncology Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD and Statistician Michael Carlberg of Orebro University Hospital, Sweden found a 3-fold increased risk of cancer with 25 or more years of cell and cordless phone use in a study published October 2014 in Pathophysiology: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pathophys.2014.10.001.
Very significant was the finding that people who first used mobile or cordless phones before the age of 20 had the highest risk. The authors state that RF-EMF should be regarded as a human carcinogen, « requiring urgent revision of current exposure guidelines. » This study followed the July 2014 CERENAT case controlled study in the Occupational and Environmental Medicine Journal where French researchers found a 3-fold increase in brain cancer with 896 or more hours of lifetime cell phone use: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24816517.
Based on the accumulation of research demonstrating health effects from wireless radiation, Professor Olle Johansson PhD of the Karolinska Department of Neuroscience has stated, « the debate is over. » Scientists Call for the World Health Organization to Reclassify RF-EMF In 2011, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF Radiation from wireless as a Class 2B Carcinogen. Since 2011, several of the WHO scientists including Anthony Miller MD, FRCP, FACE have called for a reclassification of wireless to an increased risk level.
The 2014 Hardell study states that RF radiation should be regarded as a « Group 1 Human Carcinogen, » placing it in the same category as tobacco and asbestos.
NACST’s Turn It Off 4 Kids Initiative NACST is calling on children’s health and cancer prevention organizations to make the issue of children’s health and exposure to wireless radiation in educational settings an immediate priority for 2015:
1. Call for all new school technology to be hardwired.
2. Call to replace existing wireless technology systems with hardwired systems.
3. Call for the public to be educated about simple ways to reduce exposure, especially for children and pregnant women.
4. Educate their organization’s members and audience on the health effects of wireless radiation by emails, informational web pages, and updated materials.
Expert Endorsements NACST’s Initiative has been endorsed by 20 prominent scientists, physicians and safety advocates including Drs. Lennart Hardell, Olle Johansson, Anthony Miller and Dariusz Leszczynski. Dr. Leszczynski was a participating scientist in the WHO IARC panel on RF-EMF and cancer, and Dr. Miller has served as Director of the Epidemiology Unit, National Cancer Institute of Canada, Toronto. « Given the established and emerging science, it only follows that students be provided a safe learning environment, free from wireless radiation, » stated an NACST Co-founder.
Details on Turn It Off 4 Kids Initiative can be found at: http://www.nacst.org/nacst-turn-it-off-4-kids.html http://www.NACST.org
The National Association for Children and Safe Technology is dedicated to raising awareness about the health impacts of wireless radiation on children as well as advancing policies that safeguard children’s health and well being.
— Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com
Une étude suggère que l’exposition au WIFI est plus dangereuse pour les enfants que ce que l’on pensait
Robert J. Szczerba ContributorI explore the intersection of healthcare, technology, and business.Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Tech 223 407 views
Study Suggests Wi-Fi Exposure More Dangerous To Kids Than Previously Thought
Most parents would be concerned if their children had significant exposure to lead, chloroform, gasoline fumes, or the pesticide DDT. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IRIC), part of the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO), classifies these and more than 250 other agents as Class 2B Carcinogens – possibly carcinogenic to humans. Another entry on that same list is radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF). The main sources of RF/EMF are radios, televisions, microwave ovens, cell phones, and Wi-Fi devices.
Uh-oh. Not another diatribe about the dangers of our modern communication systems? Obviously, these devices and the resulting fields are extremely (and increasingly) common in modern society. Even if we want to, we can’t eliminate our exposure, or our children’s, to RF/EMF. But, we may need to limit that exposure, when possible.
That was among the conclusions of a survey article published in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure entitled “Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences.” From an analysis of others studies, the authors argue that children and adolescents are at considerable risk from devices that radiate microwaves (and that adults are at a lower, but still significant, risk). The following points were offered for consideration:
- Children absorb a greater amount of microwave radiation than adults.
- Fetuses are even more vulnerable than children. Therefore pregnant women should avoid exposing their fetus to microwave radiation.
- Adolescent girls and women should not place cellphones in their bras or in hijabs (headscarf).
- Cellphone manual warnings make clear an overexposure problem exists.
- Government warnings have been issued but most of the public are unaware of such warnings.
- Current exposure limits are inadequate and should be revised.
- Wireless devices are radio transmitters, not toys. Selling toys that use them should be monitored more closely.
Children and fetuses absorb more microwave radiation, according to the authors, because their bodies are relatively smaller, their skulls are thinner, and their brain tissue is more absorbent.
Do the benefits of immersive learning applications outweigh the dangers of increased cellular and Wi-Fi exposure for children? (Image credit: Intel Free Press via Wikipedia)
More generally, the studies cited in the paper seek to link RF/EMF exposure to different types of cancer, low sperm count, and other disorders. However, it is important to note that survey articles such as these need to be taken in their proper context. This particular article is one group’s perspective. It was published in a relatively new and minor journal with limited data sets. They also note that the average time between exposure to a carcinogen and a resultant tumor is three or more decades, thus making it difficult to arrive at definitive conclusions.
This is not a call to throw out all electronic devices. However, at the very least, it should open up the discussion about different safety levels for adults versus children. Hopefully more longitudinal studies will be done to verify or contradict the assumptions so far. In the meantime, are the government’s current regulations adequate? The exposure levels they warn against haven’t seem to have been updated for more than 19 years.
In a Network World opinion article ominously titled “Is Wi-Fi killing us…slowly?” columnist Mark Gibbs makes the point that “… laws and warnings are all very well but it’s pretty much certain that all restrictions on products that use microwave technology will err on the safe side; that is, the side that’s safe for industry, not the side of what’s safe for society.” Gibbs then added this ominous closing question, “Will we look back (sadly) in fifty or a hundred years and marvel at how Wi-Fi and cellphones were responsible for the biggest health crisis in human history?”
But, short of that worst-case scenario, the topic certainly merits more scrutiny, and perhaps some common sense limits on what devices our children use, and for how long.
(* Post updated Jan. 14, 2015)
Follow Rob Szczerba on Forbes, Twitter (@RJSzczerba), Facebook, and LinkedIn.
Altérations des fonctions cognitives……
PubMed.org
Alterations of cognitive function and 5-HT system in rats after long term microwave exposure.
Abstract
The increased use of microwaves raises concerns about its impact on health including cognitive function in which neurotransmitter system plays an important role. In this study, we focused on the serotonin system and evaluated the long term effects of chronic microwave radiation on cognition and correlated items. Wistar rats were exposed or sham exposed to 2.856GHz microwaves with the average power density of 5, 10, 20 or 30mW/cm2 respectively for 6min three times a week up to 6weeks. At different time points after the last exposure, spatial learning and memory function, morphology structure of the hippocampus, electroencephalogram (EEG) and neurotransmitter content (amino acid and monoamine) of rats were tested. Above results raised our interest in serotonin system. Tryptophan hydroxylase 1 (TPH1) and monoamine oxidase (MAO), two important rate-limiting enzymes in serotonin synthesis and metabolic process respectively, were detected. Expressions of serotonin receptors including 5-HT1A, 2A, 2C receptors were measured. We demonstrated that chronic exposure to microwave (2.856GHz, with the average power density of 5, 10, 20 and 30mW/cm2) could induce dose-dependent deficit of spatial learning and memory in rats accompanied with inhibition of brain electrical activity, the degeneration of hippocampus neurons, and the disturbance of neurotransmitters, among which the increase of 5-HT occurred as the main long-term change that the decrease of its metabolism partly contributed to. Besides, the variations of 5-HT1AR and 5-HT2CR expressions were also indicated. The results suggested that in the long-term way, chronic microwave exposure could induce cognitive deficit and 5-HT system may be involved in it.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Author information
- 1Department of Experimental Pathology, Beijing Institute of Radiation Medicine, Beijing, China; 205 Hospital, JinZhou, Liaoning, China.
- 2Department of Experimental Pathology, Beijing Institute of Radiation Medicine, Beijing, China.
- 3Department of Radiation Protection and Health, Beijing Institute of Radiation Medicine, Beijing, China.
- 4Department of Experimental Pathology, Beijing Institute of Radiation Medicine, Beijing, China. Electronic address: fangchang_14@163.com.
- 5Department of Experimental Pathology, Beijing Institute of Radiation Medicine, Beijing, China. Electronic address: xjhu2003@vip.sina.com.
Il faut réduire l’exposition des enfants au Wi-Fi, dit un expert du cancer
Plusieurs enfants se plaignent de maux de tête, nausées, étourdissements, palpitations et autres symptômes survenus après l’installation du Wi-Fi dans les écoles. Leur degré d’exposition dépend notamment de la proximité et le nombre des appareils qui naviguent sans fil. © SpeedKingz/ Shutterstock
À l’école primaire Dearcroft Montessori, à Oakville, en Ontario, les plus jeunes élèves n’utilisent que des connexions Internet câblées (Ethernet) et la direction limite le temps d’utilisation du Wi-Fi des plus vieux. Ceci afin de minimiser l’exposition des enfants aux radiofréquences (RF) de type micro-ondes émises par les routeurs et les ordinateurs. Une décision qui plait beaucoup au Dr Anthony B. Miller qui est convaincu que ces radiations sont probablement cancérogènes.
« Les enfants devraient réduire leur exposition aux émissions du Wi-Fi et les femmes enceintes devraient éviter de mettre un portable ou une tablette sur leur ventre », conseille celui qui fut directeur de la division d’épidémiologie à l’Institut national du cancer, de 1971 à 1986. Le Dr Miller affirme également que Santé Canada ne protègerait pas adéquatement le public, car ce ministère sous-estimerait les risques à long terme des faibles expositions répétées aux RF.
Le Dr Anthony B Miller, ancien responsable des études épidémiologiques à l’Institut national du cancer.
En mai 2011, les radiofréquences furent classées « peut-être cancérogènes » (groupe 2B) par le Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (CIRC). « Nous sommes en train de potentiellement produire une génération entière qui sera exposée de façon substantielle aux radiofréquences, ce qui pourrait avoir des conséquences terribles », affirme le Dr Miller qui favorise les connexions internet câblées, qui par ailleurs sont plus fiables et moins vulnérables au piratage. « Je sens que j’ai une responsabilité envers le public, dit ce médecin de 83 ans. Pour plusieurs expositions aux agents cancérogènes, il a fallu 20 ou 30 ans de recherches pour confirmer le lien. Le cancer prend des années à se développer. Moi, je ne serai pas ici dans 30 ans! »
Probablement cancérogènes
Professeur émérite de santé publique à l’Université de Toronto, où il a déjà dirigé le Département de médecine préventive et de biostatistique, Anthony B. Miller est expert dans le dépistage, le traitement et les causes reconnues et possibles du cancer, dont les champs électromagnétiques (CEM). Le 12 septembre dernier, il était l’un des conférenciers vedettes d’un symposium sur les problèmes de santé associés aux CEM, tenu dans la Ville Reine. L’événement s’adressant aux professionnels de la santé fut organisé par l’organisme Canadiens pour une technologie sécuritaire et la Clinique de santé environnementale de l’Hôpital Women’s College, affilié à la même université. L’ancienne conseillère de Bill Clinton en matière de santé publique, l’épidémiologiste Devra Davis, présidente de l’Environmental Health Trust, y a rappelé que les micro-ondes pénètrent deux fois plus profondément dans le cerveau d’un enfant que dans celui d’un adulte et dix fois plus dans sa moelle osseuse.
Le Dr Miller est souvent apparu dans les médias depuis 2013 au sujet des RF. Le 9 juillet dernier, un groupe de médecins dont il faisait partie demandait à Santé Canada de mieux protéger la santé des Canadiens contre les méfaits possibles des RF. Parmi les signataires de cet appel, le Dr Hugh Scully, ancien président de l’Association médicale canadienne, l’un des nombreux organismes médicaux à suivre ce dossier de près.
Par ailleurs, l’année dernière, le Dr Miller cosignait un article scientifique concluant que les RF devraient plutôt être classées « probablement cancérogènes » (groupe 2A). Selon lui, les experts réunis par le CIRC n’ont pas tenu compte du fait que le risque de cancer, dans la partie du cerveau la plus exposée aux RF émises par un cellulaire pendant 10 ans, est 2,8 fois plus élevé que la normale. C’est que cette découverte fut également publiée en mai 2011, tout comme le classement 2B, dans une étude signée par les auteurs de la fameuse étude internationale Interphone. Une autre recherche a révélé que les jeunes qui commencent à utiliser régulièrement le cellulaire avant l’âge de 20 ans développent le cancer du cerveau quatre à huit fois plus souvent que la moyenne au moins une décennie plus tard. « Depuis 2011, nous avons de plus en plus de preuves biologiques des effets nocifs des RF, notamment sur l’ADN et autres mécanismes à l’origine du cancer, dit le Dr Miller. Et tout récemment (mai 2014), une étude multicentre française est venue s’ajouter aux études qui vont en ce sens. »
© RioPatuca shutterstock
Depuis la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, les radiofréquences ont été liées à des dizaines de malaises et maladies comme les palpitations cardiaques et plus récemment avec l’autisme et l’infertilité, notamment. Or, le Code de sécurité 6 de Santé Canada, ligne directrice visant à limiter l’exposition humaine aux RF, ne vise qu’à éviter l’échauffement des tissus et ignore les effets biologiques qui se manifestent à des doses des milliers de fois inférieures à celles qui conduisent à cet échauffement, déplore le Dr Miller, qui s’inquiète de l’implantation massive du Wi-Fi dans les écoles. À Santé Canada, la porte-parole Sara Lauer répond que cette technologie est tout à fait sécuritaire : « À partir des données personnelles scientifiques actuelles, les scientifiques de Santé Canada ont conclu qu’une exposition à l’énergie RF aux niveaux permis par le Code de sécurité 6 n’entraînera aucun effet néfaste sur la santé. » Mais le Dr Miller répond que Santé Canada ignore les plus récentes études, comme celles de l’oncologue suédois Lennart Hardell qui dit que les preuves suffisent aujourd’hui pour classer les RF comme « cancérogènes pour l’homme » (groupe 1).
Les enfants plus vulnérables
© Shutterstock
Chose certaine, plusieurs parents, enseignants et enfants se plaignent de maux de tête, nausées, étourdissements, palpitations et autres symptômes survenus après l’installation du Wi-Fi dans les écoles. « Il y a même eu sept arrêts cardiaques chez des écoliers de la région de Collingwood, en Ontario. Les cardiologues ne savent pas ce qui se passe », nous a confié en entrevue une autre conférencière du symposium de Toronto, la toxicologue Magda Havas, professeure d’études environnementales et des ressources à l’Université Trent, en Ontario.
En 2013, le syndicat des enseignants catholiques anglophones de l’Ontario demandait d’ailleurs que le Wi-Fi soit banni des salles de classe. Des enseignants disent avoir été menacés de perdre leur emploi pour s’être plaints de symptômes qu’ils associent aux émissions du Wi-Fi. Pour la première fois aux États-Unis, le 9 septembre denier le Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) accommodait une enseignante électrohypersensible en débranchant dans sa classe le routeur Wi-Fi qui lui occasionnait des problèmes cardiaques. « Les écoliers ont des saignements de nez et la direction refuse d’en faire rapport. J’en ai même eu deux en septième année qui saignaient des oreilles », a déclaré l’enseignante Anura Lawson. Alors que bien des pays imposent le Wi-Fi dans les écoles, des pays comme l’Allemagne ainsi que le Conseil d’Europe recommandent les connexions Internet filées et d’accommoder les personnes électrohypersensibles en créant des zones dites « blanches » sans émissions de RF.
La plupart des écoles utilisent des routeurs Wi-Fi de type industriel qui « sont typiquement des centaines de fois plus puissants que les systèmes domestiques », soulignait l’American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), en mars 2013, dans une lettre adressée au LAUSD, deuxième plus important district scolaire américain. Selon ces spécialistes de la médecine environnementale, lorsque ces appareils capables de desservir des centaines d’ordinateurs à travers des murs épais communiquent avec plusieurs d’entre eux, les enfants sont exposés à des doses très élevées de micro-ondes, même davantage que celles causées par une tour cellulaire située à 100 mètres.
Un mois plus tôt, la pédiatre neurologique Martha Herbert, experte en autisme à l’Université Harvard, écrivait également au LAUSD pour lui recommander d’abondonner son projet d’installer le Wi-Fi dans toutes ses écoles. À sa grande surprise, elle venait de découvrir plus de 500 études liant l’autisme à l’exposition aux champs électromagnétisme dont les radiofréquences (CEM/RF). « En fait, il y a des milliers d’études publiées depuis des décennies – et qui s’accumulent à un rythme accéléré ces dernières années, à mesure que nos capacités à mesurer les impacts se raffinent – qui documentent les impacts néfastes pour la santé et des effets neurologiques des CEM/RF. Les enfants sont plus vulnérables que les adultes, et les enfants avec des maladies chroniques et/ou des problèmes neurodéveloppementaux sont encore plus vulnérables. »
La neuropédiatre ajouta que la prétention des partisans du Wi-Fi selon laquelle seul le risque d’échauffement des tissus est à craindre est est aujourd’hui « définitivement dépassée scientifiquement. Les CEM/RF du Wi-Fi et des tours de cellulaires peuvent exercer un effet désorganisant sur la capacité d’apprentissage and la mémoire, et peut aussi déstabiliser les fonctions immunitaires et métaboliques. Ceci causera encore plus de difficultés d’apprentissage, en particulier pour les enfants déjà aux prises avec ce problème. Des entités industrielles puissantes ont intérêt à faire croire au public que les CEM/RF, que nous ne pouvons voir, goûter ou toucher, sont sans danger, mais cela est faux. » C’est pourquoi le Dr Herbert implora l’organisme à appliquer le principe de précaution en favorisant les connexions internet câblées, en particulier pour ces élèves plus vulnérables et en difficulté. « Il sera plus facile pour vous de prendre la meilleure décision pour la santé que de devoir défaire une décision malheureuse plus tard. »
Modes d’exposition
L’ingénieur Paul McGavin souligne que, dans les aires ouvertes, comme les classes, que l’on soit à 1 m ou 50 m du modem ou du routeur, l’exposition sera élevée car les ondes se propageront à leur pleine puissance comme la lumière. Un autre ingénieur californien, le baubiologiste Lawrence J. Gust, explique que lorsque 20 ou 30 ordinateurs rapprochés sont connectés en mode Wi-Fi, ces appareils exposent les usagers à des densités de puissance de RF plus élevées que celle produite par le routeur.
Routeur de type industriel installé dans une école.
© rf-emf.com
Bien qu’un cellulaire collé contre la tête puisse exposer une personne à une dose de RF plus élevée qu’un routeur Wi-Fi et un ordinateur, le facteur critique est la durée de l’exposition, explique Magda Havas. « Le Wi-Fi expose plusieurs enfants à des doses annuelles de RF supérieures à celles reçues d’un cellulaire qui est plus puissant mais utilisé plus rarement. La dose reçue dépend de la proximité des ordinateurs et des routeurs. Avec un cellulaire, ce sont surtout votre tête et votre main qui sont exposées, alors qu’avec le Wi-Fi, c’est le corps au complet. Comme la plupart des écoles n’éteignent jamais le Wi-Fi, les enfants sont exposés 6 heures par jour, 5 jours par semaine et 40 semaines par année, ce qui fait environ 12 000 heures d’exposition en 10 ans. Selon l’étude Interphone, les adultes qui utilisent un cellulaire pendant 1 640 heures réparties sur 10 ans haussent leur risque de souffrir du cancer du cerveau de 40 %. C’est pourquoi les femmes qui gardent leur cellulaire dans leur soutien-gorge augmentent leur risque de développer le cancer du sein. Ce n’est pas à cause d’une forte exposition mais plutôt d’une exposition à long terme à une pulsation de radiation à toutes les quelques minutes. » Notons qu’à la maison, l’exposition cumulative au Wi-Fi peut parfois même dépasser celle reçue dans une école, à cause de la durée et de l’intensité de l’exposition, soulignent les experts à qui nous avons parlé.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v75sKAUFdc
Le Wi-Fi et le cellulaire utilisent des ondes radio de la même fréquence qu’un four micro-ondes (2,45 gigahertz et même 5 gigahertz pour un routeur bibande), rappelle Magda Havas. Ces ondes absorbées par l’eau et le gras sont pulsées en continu et à des pointes de puissance beaucoup plus élevées que les valeurs moyennes citées par Santé Canada, ajoute-t-elle. De plus, les RF sont réfléchies ou concentrées par le métal – les bijoux, lunettes, implants et les appareils dentaires métalliques augmentent donc les doses reçues. Dans une vidéo Youtube portant sur le Wi-Fi, la professeure Havas souligne qu’une étude financée par l’armée de l’air américaine en 1984 avait démontré que des souris exposées à de faibles intensités de ces mêmes ondes, 21,5 heures par jour pendant 25 mois, avaient développé 260 % plus de tumeurs cancéreuses.
L’ingénieur californien Paul McGavin recommande aux fabricants de cellulaires et autres appareils sans fil de créer une application qui afficherait lesquelles de leurs antennes (parfois jusqu’à six) sont allumées et qui pourrait les faire éteindre facilement. « Aux États-Unis, cela permettrait d’économiser 65 milliards de kilowattheures d’énergie par année en plus de protéger la santé des usagers. Pour limiter les dommages causés à nos cellules, nous devrions siroter les signaux sans fil plutôt que d’en boire de grosses gorgées. On ne devrait jamais, jamais visionner un film en continu (streaming) en mode Wi-Fi. Cela fait passer des micro-ondes à travers votre corps inutilement pendant deux heures, c’est complètement fou. C’est comme si on laissait la cuisinière à gaz allumée 24 heures sur 24. »
http://videos.next-up.org/Norvege/Visualisation_2D_irradiation_WiFi_en_zone_urbaine/13_03_2011.html
Pas de preuves concluantes
Pour sa part, l’Organisation mondiale de la santé affirmait en 2005 qu’il n’a pas été prouvé que c’est l’exposition aux RF et autres CEM qui déclenche les symptômes dont la cause est attribuée à l’électrohypersensibilité (EHS). Mais l’absence de preuves scientifiques concluantes n’empêche pas le Dr Miller d’affirmer : « Il y a des gens qui sont hypersensibles à plusieurs choses, comme les médicaments et les toxines environnementales, d’autres qui le sont aux CEM comme les RF. Le lien est évident, car les symptômes disparaissent quand on réduit ou élimine l’exposition. » C’est d’ailleurs ce qu’a reconnu en 2011 l’Association médicale autrichienne.
Magda Havas conclut en rappelant que le cellulaire fut inventé en 1984, que le Wi-Fi ne fut introduit dans les écoles qu’en 2008 et que les émissions de RF augmentent de façon exponentielle à l’ère du sans fil. « Plus on augmente les émissions, plus il y a de gens qui deviennent hypersensibles. Il est surprenant de constater que les lignes directrices nationales visant à limiter l’exposition aux RF varient jusqu’à cinq ordres de grandeur, ce qui signifie qu’un pays peut tolérer des doses jusqu’à 100 000 fois plus élevées que ce qu’un autre recommande. On n’a jamais vu ça en toxicologie pour les substances chimiques et les radiations ionisantes, où les standards internationaux sont très similaires. »
© next-up.org/France/Wifi.php
Le Dr Miller ajoute que les hommes devraient éviter de mettre leur cellulaire dans leur poche ou une tablette sur leurs genoux, car diverses études indiquent que la surexposition aux RF contribuerait à l’infertilité, ce qu’a reconnu l’année dernière l’Agence nationale française de sécurité sanitaire de l’environnement, de l’alimentation et du travail.
Pour en savoir davantage
Champs électromagnétiques : douze façons de se protéger
Articles similaires:
- Enfants et cancer : polluants prioritaires à éviter
- Leucémie et champs magnétiques : « il faut protéger les enfants » – Dr Claude Tremblay
- Record canadien de cancer infantile au Québec
- La Belgique interdit les cellulaires conçus pour les jeunes enfants
- L’usage du cellulaire à long terme augmente le risque de cancer du cerveau
Mots-clé: anthony b miller, cancer, cellulaire, écoles, enceinte, enfants, featured, magda havas, rfemf.com, tablette, tablettes, Wi-Fi
Catégorie: Électrosmog, Maisons saines
À propos de l’auteur (Profil de l’auteur)
Journaliste de profession, André Fauteux s’est spécialisé en maisons saines et écologiques en 1990. Il a lancé en 1994 le premier magazine canadien en la matière, la Maison du 21e siècle, dont il est toujours l’éditeur et le rédacteur en chef.
Fœtus sensibles à l’électrosmog
Alors que l’électrosensibilité fait toujours débat, une étude anglaise révèle les effets de la pollution électromagnétique sur les enfants à naître. Des conclusions qui devront toutefois être évaluées par des experts externes.
Les nouveau-nés seraient moins développés lorsque la mère vit à proximité d’une ligne électrique ou d’un transformateur. Telles sont les conclusions d’une étude de l’Université de Manchester (GB). Les chercheurs ont porté leurs analyses sur quelque 140 000 naissances, avec des résultats qui interpellent: lorsque la mère vit à 50 mètres ou moins d’une source d’électrosmog, l’enfant pèse en moyenne 200 grammes de moins à la naissance. Cette différence serait indépendante d’autres facteurs, comme un tabagisme important ou le poids du parent, selon les auteurs.
L’expert Peter Schlegel, d’Esslingen (ZH), ne se dit pas surpris. Des études antérieurs ont montré que l’exposition à l’électrosmog a un impact sur l’utérus: «Les enfants touchés ont souvent de l’asthme plus tard, ainsi qu’un risque accru d’être en surpoids». Les lignes à hautes tensions sont également soupçonnées d’augmenter le risque de leucémie de l’ordre de 69% pour les enfants dont la maison se situe à moins de 200 mètres de celles-ci.
L’Office fédéral de l’environnement écrit que l’étude anglaise est actuellement évaluée par des experts externes et qu’«une seule étude séparée ne peut pas être la preuve d’un effet nuisible».
Afin de réduire la pollution électromagnétique, notamment pour les femmes enceintes, il est conseillé de prendre un maximum de distance avec les sources potentielles, de ne pas laisser son téléphone portable sur la table de nuit ou encore de désactiver le wifi lorsqu’il n’est pas utilisé. D’autres pistes sont décrites dans notre enquête Sus à l’électrosmog dans la maison!
Christian Egg / ld
http://www.bonasavoir.ch/actu_online.php?id=920011&page
utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=article%20online&utm_content=article%205&utm_campaign=newsletter%2010%20septembre%202014
De nouvelles conclusions scientifiques révèlent une extension des dommages causés par l’électropolution
Americans’ Brains Being Fried By Cell Towers: New Scientific Evidence Reveals Shocking Extent Of Electropollution Damage
by admin · March 29, 2014
Exposure to cell phone towers alters brain function in alarming ways, causing a lack of concentration, irritability, difficulty sleeping and lack of appetite. That’s the conclusion of a new study just published by the British Medical Journal.(1)
The study, authored by Professor Enrique A Navarro, concluded that the severity of such symptoms directly correlated to cell tower exposure levels. In other words, the closer a person lives to a cell tower, the greater the severity of their symptoms. This was true regardless of race, income level and other demographics.
Cell towers, of course, broadcast and receive electromagnetic switching signals. Human biology — and the brain in particular — relies on electro-biochemical pathways for healthy function. Many scientists have long suspected that chronic exposure to low levels of EMF pollution (electropollution) may interfere with healthy functioning of the brain and body. This latest research adds yet more support to that alarming idea.
It’s not your imagination: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is real…
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity has long been dismissed as non-existent by some doctors and industry-funded scientists. After all, if EMF pollution from cell towers really does harm public health, then the implications are truly massive, both economically and in terms of human suffering.
But electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a genuine phenomenon. People are not “inventing” side effects or symptoms. As Navarro writes in the study:
The term electromagnetic hypersensitivity has been recently introduced in discussions attributing symptoms to exposure to EMFs. A review of this topic in 2010 found that 8 of the 10 studies evaluated through PubMed had reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 m from [cell phone towers].
Importantly, all these symptoms were recorded in people living near cell phone towers whose broadcast signal strength meets current safety guidelines. As the study author points out, this most likely means current government guidelines on cell phone towers are inadequate to protect the public. Revising such guidelines could have drastic implications for the nationwide telecommunications infrastructure.
By the way, people who live fewer than 500 meters from cell phone towers appear to be especially at risk of electromagnetic interference with brain function. Because electropollution strength is determined by the inverse square of the distance, a person who moves twice as close to a cell tower experiences four times the radiation.
190,000 cell phone towers and growing
There are currently over 190,000 cell phone towers across the United States.(2)
Their typical “maximum range” is over 21 miles, meaning their electromagnetic pollution extends in a sphere with a radius of over 21 miles. (In reality, this pollution extends indefinitely, but the intensity of it drops off with the square of the distance.)
The following map shows AT&T coverage areas in orange. If you live inside an orange area, you are currently exposed to cell tower radiation.
People who live within range of two or more cell phone towers experience electropollution from all the towers within a range of 21 miles. This electropollution effect is cumulative.
It is not known how many Americans live within 21 miles of at least one cell tower, but given that over half the U.S. population lives in urban areas, it’s safe to assume that at least 150 million — and more likely close to 300 million — Americans are exposed to EMF electropollution from cell towers.
Modern society increasingly confused, irritable and sleepless
Have you noticed how the mass public seems increasingly confused and irritable? A society that once operated with some degree of sanity and politeness has become largely demented and rude. Mathematical abilities are nearly lost across the population, as very few people under the age of 40 can even calculate 15% waiter’s tips at a restaurant. The ability of voters to understand laws, liberties, freedom and even the structure of government is almost entirely lost in nations where cell phone towers are ubiquitous.
Given this recent research revealing the negative impact of cell phone radiation of human brain function, it would be incredibly irresponsible to fail to consider how cell tower radiation alters healthy brain function and promotes confusion and irritability. As more scientists look into this issue, we may indeed find that the fall of American civilization is being accelerated by electromagnetic pollution that leads to disastrous cognitive consequences across the population.
Sources for this article include:
1. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/12/e003836….
2. http://www.statisticbrain.com/cell-phone-tow…
naturalnews.com
Tags: C ell Phone TowersElectromagnetic HypersensitivityEMF Pollution
– See more at:
