Témoignages vidéos d’EHS

Archive pour juillet 2014

Large Study Shows Recent, But Not Lifetime, Exposures Lead to Brain Tumors

EMF Cancer Promotion:

An Old Idea Makes a Strong Comeback

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print
June 30, 2014
Last updated
July 5, 2014

Power-frequency magnetic fields can promote brain tumors, according to the largest epidemiological study of its kind ever undertaken. The study promises to breathe new life into the idea that extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs are more likely to be cancer promoters than causes of cancer. This hypothesis gained support a generation ago but has lost currency in recent years.

The new results, published online earlier this month by the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, come from INTEROCC, an international project with seven participating countries designed to investigate occupational health risks from chemicals and EMFs.1 The project is directed by Elisabeth Cardis at CREAL in Barcelona with $1.5 million from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (though none of the tumor cases are from the U.S.).

The INTEROCC team found that those who were exposed to elevated EMF exposures at work during the five years prior to diagnosis had significantly higher rates of glioma compared to those who were least exposed during that time on the job.2 The greater the exposure, the greater the tumor risk. Those who were most highly exposed had approximately 67% more tumors. (The controls were the lowest-exposed workers from the same study population.) The risks for meningioma, a mostly benign type of brain tumor, were smaller than for glioma.

The key concept here is cancer promotion, as opposed to cancer causation or initiation. According to the prevailing paradigm, cancer develops as a two- or three-step process. First, a cell is transformed into a cancer cell; this is initiation. The cells grow into a tumor with the help of a promoter, which helps them evade the body’s immune system. (The third stage is progression, but we won’t get into that here.)

The INTEROCC results point to EMFs as a promoter, and not as an initiator. The EMFs do not cause cancer, rather they foster its growth and development. The new finding will help sidestep the most often cited objection to the idea that magnetic fields are linked to cancer because no EMF–induced DNA breaks would be required.

As shown in the first panel of the triptych below (Figure 1a in the INTEROCC paper), the risk of developing a glioma increases with higher magnetic field exposures within five years of diagnosis.2 The trend is highly significant, with p<0.0001; that is, there is less than one chance in 10,000 that this is a random outcome. No similar increases were seen for longer exposure times, 5-9 years or 10 years or more (the second and third panels).

Figure 1a, Turner et al.The intensity of the magnetic field increases as one moves along the x-axis within each time window.
(Note: Exposures within a year of diagnosis were excluded.2)

If the cases from all three panels are combined, that is, one ignores when the workers were exposed —early or late in their careers— and look only at total exposure to magnetic fields, the promotional effect disappears. INTEROCC sees no association between brain tumors and cumulative EMF lifetime exposures.

“The suggestion that EMFs are working at the later stages of carcinogenesis is very interesting and potentially spot on,” Tony Miller, a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, told Microwave News. Miller helped lead a Canadian-French utility worker study in the 1990s (see below).

A Short History of Occupational Brain Tumor Studies

The idea that EMFs may promote cancer is by no means new. In fact, promotion was the suggested mechanism in the first report of an association with brain tumors by Ruey Lin thirty years ago. At the time Lin, who was with the Maryland health department, told Microwave News that his work “supports the theory that non-ionizing radiation may be a brain tumor promoting agent” (see MWN, Oct84, p.2). He reiterated this view in his paper, when it was published the following year. (Lin later went home to Taiwan where in 2012 he was an unsuccessful candidate for the country’s vice presidency.)

By 1990, at least a dozen EMF studies, many of them occupational, pointed to an association. “I definitely feel the case has always been the most consistent for brain tumors,” Nancy Wertheimer told us back then (see MWN, M/A90, p.1). A similar assessment was offered not long afterwards by an advisory panel assembled by the U.K. National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), chaired by Sir Richard Doll.3

Even so, assessing EMF exposure was still very primitive: Most studies used job titles as surrogates, which were imprecise. By the 1990s, measured fields were coming into play, but this raised another thorny issue: How best to estimate a worker’s past exposure —possibly reaching back over a lifetime— when all that was available was a single spot measurement or a 24-hour average. These second generation studies were also hampered by having a small number of subjects.

Birgitta Floderus in Sweden was the first to test the promotion hypothesis using measured fields. She focused on the job held the longest during the ten years prior to diagnosis and she too saw an association, but with only a weak dose-response (see MWN, S/O92, p.1). Her case-control study, with 261 brain tumor cases, was published in 1993.

Over the next couple of years, two studies of electrical workers appeared: one from Canada and France and one from the U.S., each with about 150-160 brain tumor cases. They offered somewhat different results. The Canadian-French study pointed to a leukemia risk, and though the risk of developing a brain tumor was elevated, it did not reach statistical significance (see MWN, M/A94 p.1). In a cohort study of U.S. workers, David Savitz and Dana Loomis found an excess of brain cancer but not leukemia. Like Floderus, they looked at a ten-year window before diagnosis. Without specifically mentioning the promotion hypothesis, Savitz and Loomis reported that the risk for the same amount of exposure “was markedly greater” in that time window, “suggesting a relatively short latency period.”

Further support for promotion came in 2002 when Paul Villeneuve published the results of what was then the largest study ever done, with 543 brain tumor cases (open access paper).4 Villeneuve took a different tack from Floderus and Savitz-Loomis: Rather than looking at a specific window of exposure, Villeneuve compared the risks for those with the highest magnetic field exposures in their most recent jobs to those with the highest exposures in their first jobs. The latter group had a risk that was close to five times that of the controls, though it was not significant. For those with the recent high exposures the risk was more than double that of the first job group: It soared to 12.5-times that of controls, a significant increase.

What Villeneuve saw is consistent with promotion, he told us recently. The results should be interpreted with “caution” because of the small number of cases with high exposures, he warned in his 2002 paper. Today, Villeneuve is at Carleton University.

Size Matters, As Does Detailed Exposure Assessment

Now comes INTEROCC, a case-control study with 3,761 brain tumor cases (1,939 glioma and 1,822 meningioma), more than all the previous efforts combined and about seven times bigger than Villeneuve’s. “INTEROCC is different from past studies,” says Joe Bowman, an industrial hygienist at NIOSH in Cincinnati, who was responsible for assessing EMF exposures for the project.5 “It is far larger than other occupational case-control studies.”

Not only is INTEROCC the biggest study of its kind, it also features the most thorough exposure assessment ever attempted. It uses what is known as a job-exposure matrix (JEM) to link job titles to estimates of magnetic field exposure. Bowman originally devised the JEM in the mid-2000’s. The enhanced JEM used by INTEROCC, based on personal measurements made in eight different countries, features 409 different job categories.6 One type of exposure was not included in Bowman’s JEM, however, that from GSM phones (see “What About Cell Phones?”).

A lot of the data used in INTEROCC was actually collected by the INTERPHONE project (see “Freaky or What?”) and later analyses will take into account INTERPHONE interviews on job histories and occupational EMF exposures. “We are now working on an even more detailed assessment, which will include both ELF and RF exposures,” Bowman said.

INTEROCC’s large number of subjects and the comprehensive exposure assessment presents a more detailed picture of the brain tumor risks. For the first time a dose-response analysis could be done for exposures within different exposure windows (Figure 1a above). Without those time windows, the INTEROCC analysis does not point to a promotion effect, or any EMF–brain tumor link at all.

The importance of those time windows can be seen in a case-control study published five years ago by a group at the Radiation Epidemiology Branch of the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI), led by Martha Linet and Peter Inskip (Joe Coble is the first author). The study was relatively large, with 686 brain tumor cases, including 489 glioma. Though still much smaller than INTEROCC, the NCI study comes in as the second largest study ever, bigger than Villeneuve’s. The exposure assessment was similar to INTEROCC’s; in fact, the NCI used the earlier version of Bowman’s JEM. (Bowman is a coauthor of the NCI paper.) Linet and Inskip report seeing no association, even though they had used what they called “a novel exposure assessment method.” What NCI did not do is test for promotion using time windows.

If windowing had not been applied to the INTEROCC analysis, the NCI and INTEROCC studies would have yielded “consistent results,” Bowman told Microwave News.

How Long a Time Window?

How long does it take EMFs to promote cancer cells into a brain tumor big enough to be diagnosed? The short answer is no one knows. This means the best anyone can do is to take an educated guess. INTEROCC picked a five-year window for tumor promotion, which others have used in the past. But it could have been shorter or longer.

Michelle Turner, the lead author of the new INTEROCC paper, explained that the five-year window was the team’s a priori hypothesis. “No other cut-points were used in the analysis,” she told us from Barcelona.

Previously, Birgitta Floderus in Sweden and Savitz & Loomis in the U.S. used a ten-year window. This longer time period may well have been selected to collect enough cases in order to allow them to test the promotion hypothesis. A 2001 cohort study from the U.K.’s University of Birmingham by Malcolm Harrington and Tom Sorahan used a five-year window, like INTEROCC, and ended up with only 38 cases with any exposure to magnetic fields during that time period.7 In comparison, the Savitz-Loomis study had three times as many (113) with some exposure during their ten-year window, with 43 in the most exposed group, compared to only two highly exposed cases in the 2001 Birmingham study.

Like the Birmingham group, the Danish Cancer Society has published the results of its own cohort studies, which also did not see an association between magnetic fields and brain tumors.8,9,10 (Yes, there is a Danish cohort study on EMFs, as well as on cell phones; see “Freaky or What?”).

David Savitz in 2001: Time to “Share the Good News”

In 1995, when the Savitz-Loomis study was published, Savitz didn’t mince words about what they had found: “Our study adds evidence that is clearly positive for brain cancer,” he told EPRI, the research arm of the electric utility industry.11 Yet, a few years later, in an editorial accompanying the Birmingham cohort paper in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Savitz recounted that, with the benefits of an EPRI–sponsored analysis designed to “explain and reconcile discrepant findings that had been published over the previous decade,” he had reached the conclusion that, for brain cancer, “a fairly complete answer” was in hand.12 There was no risk and no real point of doing any further research, according to Savitz.13 Here’s part of what he wrote:

“We may well be doing a disservice not to share the good news more energetically and widely —electric utility workers and other similar such workers do seem not be at measurably increased risk of brain cancer.”

Villeneuve’s study came out the following year, but by that time, research money had dried up and no one paid much attention. Indeed, nothing much happened for the next ten years except for the NCI study which, as we have seen, endorsed the prevailing view that EMFs don’t entail a brain tumor risk.

Whether INTEROCC will reopen the door that Savitz helped slam shut remains to be seen. Meanwhile, Cardis’s project team is moving forward to look at occupational exposures to both ELF and RF, based on the INTERPHONE interviews, as well as the the possible influence of chemical exposures. (So far, no cancer risks attributable to chemicals have been reported.)14 “A manuscript examining interactions between occupational chemical and ELF exposure is currently in preparation,” Turner said.

1. The seven countries are Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, New Zealand and the U.K. When the project was first announced in 2007, France and Italy were among the participants. See our report, Interphone 2.0 from 2007.

2. The INTEROCC team used five-year windows, but did not count exposures in the first year on the job prior to diagnosis. As Elisabeth Cardis explained to us, this was in order to “exclude exposures which might have occurred after a tumor started but before its diagnosis.”

3. This appraisal appears in “Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of Cancer, Report of an Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation,” Documents of the NRPB, Vol.3, No.1, 1992, p.130.

4. Paul Villeneuve found that those exposed to the highest magnetic fields were likely to develop the most aggressive types of brain tumors (grade III or IV astrocytoma, also known as glioblastoma multiforme). Based on this finding, he concluded that his results were “consistent with the hypothesis that magnetic fields act at the promotional stage.” INTEROCC investigated whether the risks were different for high- and low-grade glioma, but did not find any differences (see the INTEROCC paper’s Supplementary Table S4).

5. While Joe Bowman was responsible for the assessment of EMF exposures, Martie van Tongeren of the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Scotland was in charge of INTEROCC’s exposure assessment for chemicals. For details, see her open access paper. van Tongeren was also a coauthor of the 1997 and 2001 Birmingham papers.

6. The original JEM, described by Bowman in a 2007 paper, had 250 job categories. For details on the differences between the 2007 and the new JEM, see the ELFJEM page on the CREAL Web site.

7. Tom Sorahan published an update of the Birmingham study earlier this year. This time, he had many more cases (372), though still far fewer than INTEROCC. Expanding the time window from five to ten years also helped increase the number of cases in that promotion window to 148. He did not see a promotion effect. Sorahan is also a coauthor, with Malcolm Harrington, of an earlier paper published in 1997 (open access); this study included a total of 112 cases of brain cancer.

8. While preparing this article, we noted a trend, which, with some exceptions, shows that case-control studies tend to show an association between EMFs and brain tumors, while cohort studies do not. We asked Paul Villeneuve which of the two would be more likely to reveal an association, if one did exist. This is what he told us: “Cohort studies, in my view, are always preferred wherever possible. They avoid issues related to participation bias, and in some cases recall. However, for brain cancer outcomes due to their rarity cohorts are fairly impractical.” We posed the same question to Tom Sorahan. He replied: “The INTEROCC study is based on a larger number of cases which is a strength but has the disadvantages of relying on volunteers participating with the researchers, only having self-reported work histories and lacking real knowledge about the exposures in many different workplaces. So in general, the cohort study of specific workplaces is to be preferred. Having said that I did not consider exposures in the most recent five years in my 2014 paper.”

9. The original Danish cohort study of brain tumors among electric utility workers was published in 1998 (open access paper). An update followed in 2007. Christoffer Johansen of the Danish Cancer Society was the lead author of both papers. Joachim Schüz, now with IARC, was a coauthor of the 2007 update. Schüz is also a coauthor of the new INTEROCC paper.

10. In 1993, two years before the Savitz-Loomis paper came out, Jack Sahl published a mixed case-control and cohort study which showed no EMF–brain tumor association. The number of cases in the case-control part was very small: just 32 cases.

11. EPRI Journal, March/April 1995, p.17.

12. The electric utility industry pushed the view that, because the Canadian-French study saw a stronger link to leukemia than to brain cancer and the Savitz-Loomis study pointed to a stronger link to brain cancer than leukemia, they were inconsistent. As Stan Sussman, then the manager of EPRI‘s EMF program, stated at the time, “The inconsistencies in results among studies underscore our limited understanding of the risks of exposure to EMF among utility workers…” (EPRI Journal, March/April 1995, p.17)

13. It might be pointed out that, for most of the 1990s, David Savitz was an EPRI contractor. EPRI, the research arm of the electric utility industry, sponsored his and Dana Loomis’s epidemiological study of electric utility workers at a cost of some $5 million, about $10 million in today’s dollars.

14. The negative findings on chemical risks are reported in these two papers.

brain tumors,
Michelle Turner,
Elisabeth Cardis,
Joe Bowman,
Tony Miller,
Martha Linet,
Peter Inskip,
David Savitz,
Dana Loomis,
Gilles Thériault,
Tom Sorahan,
  Microwave News The Web

Urgent : Cherche hébergement protégé ….‏

Cherche hébergement protégé des ondes et sans émissions internes (wifi-Dect)
avec accompagnement personnalisés (cuisine, suivi d’un régime et de thérapies),
pour une dame de 44 ans électrosensible et chimico-sensible, dans une région plutôt chaude et ensoleillée.
Serait un appoint pécuniaire pour une personne à la retraite, infirmier(ère) ou garde-malade ou personne guérie de l’EHS.
Alain Vérignon

«Les ondes sont intolérables à certaines personnes»


La Depêche – Carmaux (81) – Sarmani roumy

Sarmany Roumy, chercheur depuis 20 ans dans le bien-être environnemental.
Sarmany Roumy, chercheur depuis 20 ans dans le bien-être environnemental.

Sarmani Roumy, chercheur et géobiologue, milite au sein de l’association VF5, espace «Prévention Qualité Bien-Être» qui synthétise les recherches et les applications pour accompagner et aider face aux différentes pollutions environnementales. Rencontre.

Pourquoi cette association ?

Aujourd’hui les avancées technologiques sont telles qu’elles modifient notre environnement. Ainsi les modes actuels de communication, aussi élaborés soient-ils (téléphonie mobile, transmissions sans fil et objets connectés), sont-ils vraiment exempts d’effets ? Cela nous a amenés à rassembler des outils pour informer, harmoniser et maintenir l’équilibre du vivant.

Pouvez-vous décrire ce qui se passe ?

Notre cerveau dégage des ondes qui se modifient sous l’influence de l’environnement. Des recherches en «électro-culture» montrent par exemple l’impact de la musique sur le développement des plantes. On a maintenant plus de 100 ans de recul sur ces questions.

Quels pourraient être les troubles et les conséquences ?

Prenons l’exemple des UV : ce sont des rayonnements qui ont une action sur notre peau. Les fréquences ont-elles une influence sur notre corps ? La réponse est «oui». J’ai moi-même une sensibilité vis-à-vis des ondes électromagnétiques et je me suis intéressé à leur interaction avec l’élément «eau» – dont nous sommes constitués à plus de 70 % – et à leurs effets.

Comment se protéger ?

Certaines personnes deviennent intolérantes aux ondes et leur vie devient extrêmement compliquée. En l’état actuel de la science – l’OMS les a reconnues «potentiellement cancérigènes» – la première des choses à faire, c’est un usage modéré de ces technologies.

Que proposez-vous comme solution ?

Bon sens et principe de précaution sont nos meilleurs alliés et doivent nous guider. Notre objectif est d’informer et de former afin de privilégier l’équilibre et le bien-être des lieux et des personnes.

Contact : VF5 — Sarmani Roumy — 06 28 79 01 92. Mail : sarmani@vf5.fr


Réduction des champs électro-magnétiques toxiques





  • author: Kirstin Bsecret
  • target: Local leaders and businesses primarily in Massachusetts
  • signatures: 106

we’ve got 106 signatures, help us get to 7,000

Although a hidden threat, wireless is causing illness: fatigue, exhaustion, headaches, tumor, DNA damage, ADD, cancer, diabetes, metabolic breakdown, technological sensitivity (EHS), digital addiction, etc. . .

Wind turbines, appliances, and other equipment also emit harmful electromagnetic forces. Regulation for health factors is virtually nil.

Overwhelming peer reviewed, scientific literature demonstrates the correlation between electromagnetic frequency (EMF) exposure and neurological, cardiac, and pulmonary disease, as well as reproductive disorders, immune dysfunction, cancer, metabolic disorders, and other health conditions (see http://www.justproveit.net/studies).

mps Much more than half of over 10,000 studies show detrimental effects, although mainstream media is confused on this science (see signature #24). This research is especially concerning regarding the effects on lifetime supplies of female eggs/pregnancy, the ecosystem, and the health, physical and mental, of children.

For individuals with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), entering an electrosmog zone can be painful and/or disabling, in addition to increasing cumulative radiation damage and increasing chances others become ill. This reduces the capabilities of people to participate in society, & increases dependence.


http://www.meetup.com/HEALove/, OR working with others for change. Raising awareness & reducing EMFs should encourag… more

you have the power to create change.

Start sharing and watch your impact grow


Stop Smart Meters!

Swedish Neuroscientist Olle Johannson Warns Arizona’s Health Authorities About Smart Meter “Poisonous Snake”

Posted on July 25, 2014 by onthelevelblog

Screen Shot 2014-07-25 at 2.16.51 PM

Olle Johannson of Stockholm’s Karolinska Institute

Swedish Neuroscientist and Associate Professor at the prestigious Karolinska institute in Stockholm Sweden, Olle Johannson, has written a letter to the Arizona Dept. of Health Services encouraging them to re-evaluate the risks of utility company smart grid policies.   Johannson urges them to share his skepticism of industry-funded research into the extremely controversial question of whether exposures from wireless devices- including “smart” meters-  are causing preventable damage to the public health.

He blasts those who dismiss scientific research showing harm from wireless technologies, saying essentially that it only takes one poisonous snake to bite you, and there are thousands of studies now showing changes in biology- many <harmful- from microwave radiation exposures- even at a relatively small dose.  That makes the ubiquitous and high powered wireless pulses from smart meters particularly worrying.  Johannson says:

Screen Shot 2014-07-25 at 10.12.40 AM

Screen Shot 2014-07-25 at 10.13.44 AMScreen Shot 2014-07-25 at 1.21.47 PM

Read Olle Johannson’s letter to the Arizona Dept. of Health Services in its entirety here.


Posted in Arizona, health effects, Physicians, radio-frequency radiation, Safety, Smart Grid, Wi-Fi | 2 Comments

Chicago’s Com Ed Gives Out Free Ice Cream to Soften Resistance to “Smart” Meters

Posted on July 18, 2014 by onthelevelblog

screen-shot-2014-05-14-at-12.54.03-pm-1024x626 Perhaps in an effort to “sweeten the deal” and neutralize opposition to their “smart” meter program, Com Ed is giving away free ice cream using vans this July in several Chicago neighborhoods.

Unfortunately when the sugar high has faded, Chicago residents who accept “smart” meters on their homes may feel duped as they will be left with higher bills, a surveillance state apparatus in their home, and quite possibly a bad headache– even a house fire or explosion.

Klansmen-via-Flickr-615x345Turns out the utilities are not the only one using free sugar to woo people to fascist causes- the Ku Klux Klan has begun giving away free candy in Florida and South Carolina this summer.  To make matters stranger, it turns out that the traditional tune played by ice cream trucks is one of the most racist songs in the history of the US.

Remember folks:

1)  never take candy or ice cream from strangers

2)  never assume that the utility (or the Klan for that matter) are telling you the truth- especially where there are sugary treats involved.

The truth is that this shameless utility industry marketing ploy to harm communities makes us sick.

Maybe we could press into service a Stop Smart Meters! Analog Defense Van to shadow ComEd’s Toxic Radiation Trespass/ Free Ice Cream Van and give away free analog meter defense kits, flyers about health hazards, and RF measuring meters.  Maybe even some Coconut Bliss.

Selfie that, ComEd.

Plus, we would definitely have better music.

Who’s down?

Posted in Changing a Meter, Illinois, neighborhood organizing, Smart Grid | 2 Comments

When Will the Smart Meter Insanity End?

Posted on July 9, 2014 by onthelevelblog

Originally posted on SmartGridAwareness.Org


There have been a number of articles appearing in the national media over the past few weeks outlining the dangers and risks of so-called “smart” utility meters.  The smart grid mouthpiece website SmartGridNews.com even ran an article called, “Smart meters trapped between benefits and dangers, claims Forbes.”   In quoting the Forbes article, SmartGridNews.com stated:

“Despite the promise of empowering people through enhanced consumption data… some people are scared and resist the idea of smart metering, citing concerns about meter accuracy, data security, and health,” wrote Forbes contributor Federico Guerrini.  “Privacy is probably the most sensitive issue:  similarly to what happens with phone calls metadata, information about the energy consumption of a family or of an individual, can reveal a lot of details about the life of the persons monitored.”

Hacker's Backdoor.1Beyond issues over meter accuracy, data security, health, and privacy mentioned above, components of the smart grid (including smart meters) dramatically increase the cyber threat to the electrical grid.  This threat is not limited to personal health and security risks but also poses a serious threat to our national security as well.

Just last month, an article was featured on this website about the nightmare scenario posed by smart meters when they get hacked.

Now, in July, a new article was featured at Bloomberg.com regarding hackers finding an open back door to the power grid.  According to the Bloomberg.com article:

“Making the electricity grid greener is boosting its vulnerability to computer hacking, increasing the risk that spies or criminals can cause blackouts.”

“Adding wind farms, solar panels and smart meters to the power distribution system opens additional portals through which hackers can attack the grid, according to computer security experts advising governments and utilities.”

“The communication networks and software that link green energy sources to the grid as well as the electronic meters that send real time power usage to consumers and utilities are providing new back-door entry paths for computer hackers to raise havoc with the grid.  The disclosure this week that hackers known as ‘Dragonfly’ and ‘Energetic Bear’ gained access to power networks across the U.S. and Europe in the past 15 months is a reminder of how vulnerable the system has become.”

“In the past, all power use was measured by mechanical meters, which required a utility worker to inspect and read them.  Now, utilities are turning to smart meters that communicate data on flows minute by minute both to customers and utilities.”

“’Anytime you introduce more software, you introduce more complexity and inevitably more potential holes to the system,’ said Gavin O’Gorman, a threat intelligence analyst at Symantec Corp. (SYMC), the security company based in Mountain View, California, that identified the ‘Dragonfly’ threat.”  [See post entitled « Dragonfly: Western Energy Companies Under Sabotage Threat. »]

For example, smart meters contain a relay that can disconnect a household from the power supply.  As explained by Nick Hunn, chief technology officer at WiFore, a U.K.-based wireless technology consultant: “This is controlled by the utility from a computer keyboard.  Since the same code goes into all meters, it would take just one small piece of code inserted by a rogue programmer to disconnect the power from millions of meters and disable the remote connection to the utility.”

As reported by Bloomberg.com, the energy industry is currently the most targeted sector in the United States, “accounting for 59 percent of the 256 attacks recorded last year by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.”

Also reported is that “almost all the specifics of the incidents are kept quiet to prevent damage to the companies victimized.”  In other words, information related to risks and actual attacks on our power grid is being deliberately suppressed and withheld from the public.  This policy of suppressing risk related information regarding the smart grid and smart meters completely contradicts the recommendations from a U.S. General Accounting Office report released in 2011 which stated:

“Consumers are not adequately informed about the benefits, costs, and risks associated with smart grid systems.  …  As a result, until consumers are more informed about the benefits, costs, and risks of smart grid systems, utilities may not invest in, or get approval for, comprehensive security for smart grid systems, which may increase the risk of attacks succeeding.”

Despite the risks and the almost daily revelations of danger and harm, the utilities blindly move forward deploying smart meters like mindless robots sowing the seeds of our own destruction.  That may sound a bit melodramatic but yet one needs to ask:  “What would it take to stop this ill-fated and  irrational   exercise in wasted resources?”

Furthermore, SmartGridNews.com in another story on July 1st acknowledged that smart meters are effectively of no value to our electrical grid when it stated:

“… thus far, spending on the smart grid has been dominated by smart meters that allow more granular and frequent readings and the transmission of that data to the utility, eliminating the old-fashioned meter reader.  But just adding a communications feature to the meters is not deeply game-changing; it is the equivalent of installing a speedometer and gas gauge without a steering wheel and brakes.”

When and how will the insanity on smart meters end?   Since in the words of SmartGridNews.com we are currently traveling “without a steering wheel and brakes,” the chances of this journey ending safely without a catastrophic event are not good. 

Consumers need to work together on a massive scale to first “apply the brakes” on this fiasco and then turn us in a different direction before it is too late.

Addendum:  Latest News from the U.K.

As was stated above, there appears to be daily revelations about the risks related to smart meters, yet the governments and utilities continue to install them as if they are mindless robots. Current news reports out of the U.K. drive this point home.  As reported this week by The Telegraph, “Smart Meters’ to Be Put in Every British Home Despite Fears They May Not Work,” and:

“The £11 billion Government plan to put ‘smart meters’ into every British home will be launched this week despite fears they may not work and could open the national grid up to cyber -terrorists.”

“A risk assessment carried out by the energy watchdog, Ofgem, has … identified ‘a range of threats such as cyber, viruses and malicious software.’”

“Margaret Hodge, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said:  ‘This is a typical Government project – they set up a big scheme but don’t think about the costs to the consumer because it’s being driven by the energy companies.  This expensive equipment is already out-of-date, because we could get the information on our smartphones.  The Government should really think about the technology they are using and make sure that the consumer benefits.’”

In addition, the CBR technical blog reports that:

“… official documents found that the meters will not work in a third of British homes, including high-rise flats, basements and rural houses.  This is because the meters use wireless communication method ZigBee to transfer the information, which does not work in building[s] with thick walls or multi-story flats.”

The meters won’t work in a third of British homes?  What more can we say?  There is nothing “smart” about this “insanity,” and it must end now.

Courtesy Take Back Your Power
Courtesy: Josh del Sol

About the Author

K. T. Weaver is a health physicist who was employed in the nuclear division of a leading electric utility for over 25 years.  He served in various positions, including Station Health Physicist, Senior Health Physicist, corporate Health Physics Supervisor, and corporate Senior Technical Expert for Radiobiological Effects.  K.T. Weaver has earned a B.S. in Engineering Physics and an M.S. in Nuclear Engineering with a specialty in radiation protection.

Links Referenced in this Blog Article:

    • http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-01/renewable-energy-s-expansion-exposing-grids-to-hacking.html
    • http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Technologies_Metering/Smart-meters-trapped-between-benefits-and-dangers-claims-Forbes-6601.html
    • http://www.forbes.com/sites/federicoguerrini/2014/06/01/smart-meters-friends-or-foes-between-economic-benefits-and-privacy-concerns/
    • http://smartgridawareness.org/2014/06/09/the-smart-meter-nightmare-scenario/
    • http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/dragonfly-western-energy-companies-under-sabotage-threat
    • http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Delivery_Grid_Optimization/Should-we-be-working-on-a-strong-grid-instead-6612.html
    • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10949976/Smart-metersto-be-put-in-every-British-home-despite-fears-they-may-not-work.html
    • http://www.cbronline.com/news/tech/hardware/desktops/will-the-uk-governments-smart-meters-project-fail-4311768
    Posted in Citizen rebellion, Democracy, Federal Government, health effects, Privacy, Safety, Smart Grid, Take Back Your Power | Leave a comment

    Another Fire: Landis + Gyr Smart Meter Causes Apt. Blaze

    Posted on July 7, 2014 by onthelevelblog

    Courtesy of Smartmeterharm.org:

    This apartment fire occurred in Bensalem, Pennsylvania on February 6, 2014.

        • 14 families were displaced
        • 7 apartments had fire damage, 5 had significant damage
        • 11 apartments had smoke and water damage
        • 1 firefighter was injured

        It was caused by a Landis + Gyr Smart Meter that exploded and caught fire, and set the apartment building on fire.

        Bensalem Battalion Chief Robert Sponheimer told the Bucks County Courier Times that the fire started in a utility meter in an outside shed that housed electrical meters.

        “…residents reported hearing a loud bang, then losing power Thursday evening. Within minutes they saw smoke pouring out of the shed. The fire then spread to the building and its roof, Sponheimer said.”

        “The meter itself is the cause of the Bensalem fire, not arcing and not the wires, per the Bensalem Fire Marshal.”

        A full account by Skyvision Solutions can be read here.

        Pennsylvania’s utility company PECO halted Smart Meter installation in August 2012 because of meters overheating and catching fire. They were using Sensus Smart Meters, Elster, and L + G at the time. There was a state investigation. Sensus Smart Meters were declared safe, but PECO began replacing all Sensus meters with Landis + Gyr Smart Meters.

        Change in manufacturer makes no difference.

        A Landis + Gyr Smart Meter in Ontario, Canada flew off an apartment building and caught fire.

        The fire that killed Larry Nikkel in California was started by a Landis + Gyr Smart Meter.

        Pacific Gas and Electric uses Landis + Gyr.

        The EMF Safety Network has maintained an extensive list of Smart Meter fires, explosions, and electrical damage.

        California and the West are facing a terrible drought. Most places are tinder dry.

        A Smart Meter fire in a dry, forested region would become a catastrophe quickly, affecting many homes and residents.

        Having Smart Meters on homes and businesses is a terrible risk for every community.

        If you think that our governments, utilities, and fire departments have our families’ safety as their first priority, think again.   It’s up to us to protect the safety and health of our families, and that means doing whatever is necessary to get these meters off your home and out of your community.

        Posted in Changing a Meter, Fires, PG&E | 1 Comment

        Smart Meter Scourge Targets UK with Propaganda

        Posted on June 17, 2014 by onthelevelblog


        This analog meter installed inside a home in Bristol, UK, is fitted with a coin activated pre-pay meter, an attempt by utilities to avoid students moving out and not paying their bills.  Meters in the UK are typically located inside the home, providing a practical advantage to resist smart meters- just don’t answer the door.

        Smart meters are now being installed in the UK haphazardly, house by house without the regimented deployments that have riled neighborhoods in the US, Canada, and Australia.  The UK government has delayed the systematic roll-out of smart meters but still claim they will be in every home in the UK by 2020 (though of course they have no legal mandate to force them on private property as elsewhere).  The UK government claims that the meters are voluntary but Big Energy is duping customers into believing that they are mandatory.

        Energy companies are keen to avoid the kind of public relations disasters that have engulfed and derailed smart meter programs elsewhere, planting misleading propaganda into British newspapers, and trying to make the public believe these stupid things are really necessary.  Serious doubts have been raised by our UK counterpart StopSmartMeters.Org.Uk at the parliamentary level about the wisdom of such a scheme. (see video below).  Shortly after SSM UK’s testimony, the Dept. of Energy and Climate Change announced a yearlong delay in the program.  A detailed report on the UK’s smart metering scheme that includes opposition testimony can be found in pdf form here.

        It’s not that British energy companies are so much kinder and gentler than in the US.  It’s that they know if they behave like thugs and disconnect people who have paid their bills, the British public will simply not tolerate it.   People in the UK are aghast when I tell them that the local power company in the US cut off our family even though we pay our bills.   They shake their head and say it could never happen in England.  People just wouldn’t allow it.

        Perhaps this community spirit is left over from the blitz in WWII where Londoners had to hide in Underground stations to avoid German bombs.   The National Health Service (NHS) emerged from this trauma and the British would not tolerate its loss (though an ill-advised privatization scheme is being hotly debated, and ushered in through the back door at the moment).

        Energy companies have been targeting low income families around the UK for smart meter deployment, according to Mike Mitcham of SSM UK.  Being able to remotely disconnect these households is one major benefit to the utilities.  Energy companies are also promoting “smart” meters as a solution to energy poverty – a little like promoting high interest loans as a solution to debt.

        The grassroots movement against smart meters in the UK and elsewhere continues to grow.  Walking around London I have seen SSM UK posters in people’s windows, so it is clear the word is getting out.   Can the utility companies sneak these radiating spy meters into people’s homes before they grasp what is at stake?  It remains to be seen.   Bottom line here is that if communities get aware, then organize and refuse, we have the power to take on even the biggest corporations.  We just have to believe in- and take back- our own power.

        Posted in Britain, Changing a Meter, Citizen rebellion, Class Issues and Social Equality, Democracy, Smart Grid | 4


        deux appartements à louer


        Deux appartements d’environ  65 m2 sont à louer à partir du 1° août 2014.
        Situés dans une ferme biologique (élevage de vaches, prairies et jardin) ils sont dans une maison indépendante de 3 niveaux. Le rez de chaussée est occupé par buanderie et pièces annexes.
        530 €/mois, eau et chauffage compris – mais pas l’électricité.  Très bien chauffé en hiver.
        Dans une maison voisins, à 20 mètres, habite une personne EHS.
        Le propriétaire, très compréhensif, donnerait la préférence à des EHS.
        Ces appartements conviendraient à des personnes peu sensibles au 50Hz – toutefois l’installation électrique est un peu modulable,
        et peu MCS : l’appartement du 1° étage nécessiterai une aération cet été car un vernis au sol, « naturel » dégage des odeurs…
        En Hautes Fréquences très faibles valeurs ( Cornet et Acoustimeter)
        mais les impulsions d’une clôture électrique sont détectées au rez de chaussée de la maison. (Rien en hiver)
        Cette ferme est  entre St Martin en Vercors et St Julien en Vercors.(26420)
        Pour plus de précisions, téléphoner à Isabelle P. entre 12 et 14 Heures
        au 04 75 05 14 92

        ‘Je suis électrosensible’ – Marie Claire – 09/07/2014

        mal de tête

        Wifi, antennes relais, smartphones… Marie ne supporte plus les ondes, qui la rendent physiquement malade. Mais comment vivre dans un quotidien qui en est baigné ? Electrohypersensibilité : qu’est-ce que c’est ?C’est peu dire que, depuis onze ans, les ondes électromagnétiques me pourrissent la vie. Elles constituent un authentique empoisonnement à petit feu de ma santé. Et le poison vient de partout : des antennes relais, des téléphones mobiles, du wifi, des téléphones sans fil, des fours à micro-ondes et de l’électricité. Un pur cauchemar !

        Aussi, pour sauver ma peau, je me bricole des ersatz de solutions.

        Quand la pression des ondes dans ma tête devient trop douloureuse, j’enrubanne mon crâne de papier d’aluminium, des sourcils à la nuque. Cela fait écran aux ondes qui rebondissent et, en dix minutes, la souffrance s’atténue. Je fais de même dans le métro, que je ne prends quasiment plus car, après quatre stations, j’ai la sensation d’avoir le crâne compressé tandis qu’une perceuse le perfore dans un incessant va-et-vient derrière chaque oreille. L’effet est semblable avec les brouilleurs anti-mobiles des cinémas : une douleur à se taper la tête contre les murs. J’ai toujours un rouleau d’aluminium dans mon sac, mais le regard des gens est difficile à supporter, je suis très mal à l’aise.

        Je ne suis pas une illuminée mais victime d’une vraie maladie, reconnue en Suède, en Allemagne, en Autriche et en Californie : l’électrohypersensibilité, caractérisée par des vertiges, des sensations de brûlure, une perte de concentration et de mémoire. Pour continuer à enseigner, je me suis confectionné un casque recouvert d’aluminium. Je porte des lunettes de soleil pour faire la classe, et aussi chez moi, même en hiver car, la maladie avançant, je suis devenue intolérante à la lumière.

        Electrohypersensibilité : combattre les ondes au quotidien

        Je ne peux même plus dormir avec mon mari dans notre chambre. Sinon, chaque nuit, comme c’est le cas depuis janvier 2003, je me réveille pile à 3 heures, sans pouvoir me rendormir. Impossible de me lever pour autant, je suis paralysée de fatigue au fond de mon lit, vidée de toute force, ne pouvant même pas aller aux toilettes. Je sais aujourd’hui qu’à 3 heures les opérateurs téléphoniques « rebootent » les antennes relais. De fait, elles crachent un maximum d’ondes.

        Après avoir testé tous les coins de la maison, j’ai découvert que l’espace le moins pollué c’est la salle de bains, entre la baignoire et le placard. C’est désormais là que je passe mes nuits. Pour arriver à dormir, j’installe au-dessus de moi une tente spécifiquement fabriquée dans un tissu qui fait barrage aux quelques ondes qui rôdent quand même à cet endroit. En physique, cela s’appelle le principe de la cage de Faraday. Le coton du tissu renferme un très fin maillage de métal, composé d’argent et de cuivre dans une gaine de polyuréthane : c’est ce qui empêche les ondes de passer.

        Cela fait rire les gens : « Ah, ah, elle a un problème de couple ! Elle va dormir dans la baignoire. » Absolument pas ! Nous sommes très amoureux. D’ailleurs, j’étais si triste qu’on fasse chambre à part que, durant un temps, mon mari est venu dormir avec moi sous la tente, dans la salle de bains. Le hic ? Certes, ça me protège des ondes, mais il y a relativement peu d’air dessous, on respire donc notre CO2. Aussi, à force de se réveiller épuisé, faute d’oxygénation suffisante durant la nuit, il a réinvesti la chambre. Seul.

        L’année 2003 coïncide, par ailleurs, avec mon arrivée dans l’école maternelle où j’enseigne. Coup de malchance, ma classe est cernée par un champ d’antennes relais, toutes à moins de 50 m. Et son plafond compte rien de moins que quinze néons qui déversent leur flot d’ondes sur moi. Entre ma classe, la rue et notre maison, je baigne jour et nuit dans les ondes toxiques. Résultat, peu à peu, je me sur-empoisonne et je développe moult symptômes : maux de tête et de ventre insoutenables, pertes de mémoire, troubles de la concentration, confusion cognitive, acouphènes, tendinites un peu partout, douleurs à l’intérieur des os, vertiges, difficultés respiratoires, irritabilité irrépressible… Et un mélange entre crise de foie et gastro pour ce qui est de l’impact du wifi.

        Electrohypersensibilité : les symptômes

        Je sais à présent qu’il existe des T-shirts anti-ondes ­ – à 208 ­ € – et des caleçons longs fabriqués dans le même tissu que la tente. Si je l’avais découvert plus tôt,je m’en serais vêtue à l’école, car plus la surface du corps est protégée, moins les ondes pénètrent, et vu qu’on est bombardé, elles s’insinuent partout. J’aurais, bien sûr, tenu plus longtemps dans ma classe et, d’électrosensible, je ne serais pas devenue électrohypersensible. Le problème avec les ondes, c’est qu’on se surcontamine non-stop et que la maladie s’aggrave. Ainsi, récemment, pour avoir téléphoné pendant deux minutes avec un mobile ­ – mon seuil de tolérance étant de moins d’une minute -, j’ai eu la sensation, pendant trois jours, d’être brûlée au troisième degré, du haut du crâne aux épaules. Et, désormais, je suis aussi allergique aux ondes électriques.

        Il y a peu, j’ai brutalement ressenti une douleur insoutenable au ventre, digne des contractions d’un accouchement.

        J’ai dû couper le compteur électrique pour que ça cesse. Depuis, je fuis de chez moi quand fonctionne un appareil qui « tire » beaucoup sur l’électricité, comme le lave-linge ou le four, car cela décuple le champ électrique. Le courant est coupé durant la journée, frigo, congélateur et chaudière exceptés. On le remet le soir, car les enfants en ont assez de dîner à la bougie… Mais pour lire, je m’éclaire toujours ainsi. On a beau avoir changé les ampoules à basse consommation, qui me créent des maux de tête, pour revenir aux anciennes, à incandescence, je suis empoisonnée depuis trop longtemps pour que le bénéfice soit évident.

        Je continue donc à bricoler et j’essaie de me décharger au maximum des ondes en prenant trois ou quatre douches par jour, mais ce n’est qu’un palliatif et, finalement, j’ai des séquelles sévères, notamment au plan cognitif. Mes troubles de l’orientation et de la mémoire ont empiré, parfois jusqu’à la confusion mentale, depuis l’arrivée de la 4G.

        A plusieurs reprises, je me suis perdue entre chez moi et la boulangerie, située à 200 m, sachant que j’habite ce quartier depuis des années. A l’école, alors qu’une blondinette de 3 ans s’est blessée, je ne me rends pas compte que je soigne et cajole, à sa place, un grand gaillard black de 4 ans. C’est en entendant cette petite fille continuer à pleurer que je finis par percuter que je ne soigne pas le bon enfant. J’ai dû arrêter d’enseigner en septembre dernier. Un drame, car j’adore mon métier. Mais j’étais arrivée au bout du possible. De temps en temps, je dois m’y reprendre à dix fois pour lire un article de magazine. Je ne me reconnais pas. Pourtant, depuis 2003, je m’active pour comprendre ce qui m’arrive.

        Electrohypersensibilité : comment se soigner ?

        Dix ans d’errance médicale à souffrir sans savoir de quoi, ni pourquoi. Les médecins associent d’emblée insomnies et pertes de mémoire à la dépression. Donc, même si je ne me sens pas dépressive, j’ai suivi deux psychothérapies de trois ans. Et j’ai tout essayé : luminothérapie, sophrologie, kinésiologie, EMDR, ostéopathie, acupuncture, homéopathie. Sans résultat.

        Le bout du tunnel arrive en avril 2013, lorsque je suis enfin diagnostiquée électrohypersensible par un professeur, cancérologue, spécialiste de la médecine environnementale, qui a créé une consultation spécifique à Paris, en 2012. C’est un soulagement immense, de mettre enfin un nom sur ce que je subis. Mais une mauvaise nouvelle m’attend : « Vous êtes dans un état pré-Alzheimer à certains moments, m’avertit-il. Si vous continuez à vivre au milieu des ondes, dans cinq ans vous êtes Alzheimer ! » Un choc d’autant plus violent que ma mère en est atteinte.

        Le point positif, c’est que je découvre que je ne suis pas seule, et c’est pour moi un salut incroyable de parler à d’autres via le collectif des électrohypersensibles (www.electrosensible.org) et de me sentir écoutée, comprise, pas niée dans la maladie. Ma famille essaie de ne pas me juger, même si elle ne comprend pas, mais je passe mon temps à convaincre certains proches que je ne suis pas folle.

        Heureusement, mon mari et mes enfants sont solidaires. Nous quittons d’ailleurs l’Ile-de-France pour aller vivre au milieu des bois, en Bourgogne, dans une « zone blanche », où la première antenne relais et le premier voisin avec son wifi sont à 3 km. En effet, il suffit que je m’éloigne des ondes au moins vingt jours pour que mon corps se décharge et que mes facultés cognitives et mon sommeil soient à nouveau normaux. Pleine d’espoir, je change de vie, pour redevenir celle que j’étais avant d’être polluée par les ondes. J’espère retrouver une vie tout simplement normale.

        Par Véronique Houguet

        Source : http://www.marieclaire.fr/,je-suis-electrosensible,719180.asp#?


        Retour d’expérience – étude EHS de l’INERIS


        Bonjour les amis,Comme promis, un retour d’expérience de ma participation à l’étude EHS conduite par l’INERIS. J’y étais vendredi (matériellement, l’examen des sujets se déroule à La Pitié, à Paris).
        Mon impression est très positive. La thésarde à qui cette étude est confiée est en biologie-santé (et non en psycho ou en socio…), et son questionnement montre un vrai intérêt pour le sujet. Il n’y a pas de questionnement psy (on ne vous demande pas si vous êtes anxieux, si vous avez des phobies…). Ce sont en fait des prélèvement de salive et d’urine (amis poètes…) faits tout au long de la journée (plus d’autres que vous devez faire chez vous la veille au soir). C’est donc très peu contraignant si ce n’est qu’il faut y passer une petite journée (de 10h00 à autour de 16h30).

        Il n’y a pas d’exposition aux CEM, au contraire, on passe la plus grande partie de la journée dans une cage de Faraday !! du coup c’est reposant comme une journée à la campagne – si ce n’est l’absence totale de vue, c’est une pièce fermée, et qu’on est tout de même face à un écran-. Du coup j’avais tendance à m’endormir, ça a pas mal impressioné l’expérimentatrice.

        Ils cherchent d’autres EHS pour l’étude ; de préférence jeunes : avant 50 ans, mais même, si possible, avant 40 ou même avant 30 ans. Non seulement parce qu’après 50 ans des phénomènes hormonaux apparaissent (amis poètes, encore) mais aussi parce que leur échantillon de personnes « saines » est très jeune et pour que la comparaison soit pertinente il faut que les âges « matchent ». Désolée de cet agéïsme honteux, mais c’est pour la science !!

        Une autre étude, avec exposition aux CEM cette fois, est prévue l’année prochaine. Ni Choudat (par rapport à qui la jeune femme est très critique) ni Aurengo ne sont dans le coup.

        Bref si c’est un piège il est très, très bien dissimulé.


        J’en profite pour ajouter une info pratique : les personnes intéressées peuvent contacter la doctorante en charge de l’étude, Soafara Andrianome, au
        03 44 61 81 92
        ou à son adresse mail 

        N’hésitez pas à faire circuler.

        Bien à vous,


        Vertiges, palpitations, syncopes ….malaises inexpliqués ? dommage pour les patients que les médecins ne lisent pas les études sur les CEM…


        Publication trés importante du Pr MARTIN PALL sur le mecanisme d’action des champs EMF et pourquoi les normes actuelles sont fausses


        Bonjour à tous,


        Je vous envoie une publication trés importante du Pr Martin Pall qui explique que les normes de sécurité internationales actuelles concernant les ondes EMF ne sont pas basées sur le mécanisme réel d’action qui génère toutes perturbations biologiques constatées chez les personnes EHS !!!! (il ne s’agit pas d’un effet thermique/Chaleur)

        Le mécanisme en cause est en lien avec les canaux calciques voltage dépendants ( VGCC) . cela se traduit par un taux trés élevé de calcium intra cellulaire induisant toute une série de symptomes et de réactions biologiques.

        J’ai traduit ( copie ci joint) cet email du Pr Martin Pall qui résume brièvement le contenu de sa publication scientifique afin que les personnes ne parlant pas anglais puissent comprendre l’idée essentielle de cette publication.

        Trés cordialement,

        Cathy Hochart


        Titre : Les champs EMF et Micro-ondes agissent en activant les canaux calciques voltage-dépendants ce qui génèrent de nombreux effets bioloqiques + Pourquoi les standards de sécurité actuels sont ils faux  ?

        27 JUIN 2014

        Il a été démontré que les champs basses fréquences et micro-ondes (EMFs)
        agissent en activant les canaux calciques voltage-dépendants (VGCC) .
        La plupart des effets biologiques sont dus à un taux élévé de calcium
        intra-cellulaire avec pour conséquence , un taux élévé d’oxide nitrique
        (NO) et l’indication de la présence de peroxinitrite ou de NO. Tout ceci
        :   le rôle d’un calcium intracellulaire excessif dû a l’effet
        micro-onde ,  les importantes impactes biologiques liées aux champs
        pulsés ainsi que quelques 20 000 publications scientifiques sur le sujet des
        effets biologiques liés aux champs micro-ondes, tout ceci donc montre bien
        que les standards internationaux de sécurité actuels ne prennent pas en compte le risque/danger  biologique.

        Les standards de sécurité actuels sont basés sur la fausse assomption
        que les effets prédominants des expositions aux champs micro-ondes et
        autres champs basses fréquences sont dus à la chaleur (effet thermique).

        Toute une série de modifications biologiques dont on dit qu’elles sont
        engendrées par des expositions aux champs micro-ondes peuvent maintenant
        être expliquées par  ce nouveau paradigme : Les champs
        electromagnétiques agissent en activant les canaux calciques
        voltage-dépendants ( VGCC). Ces modifications biologiques sont les
        suivantes : stress oxydatif, simple et double cassure des brins dans
        l’ADN cellulaire.

        On trouve aussi les effets thérapeuthiques tels que  :
        perméabilité de la barrière hémato-encéphalique, taux de mélatonine trés bas et perturbation  du sommeil, cancer, infertilité masculine et féminine, dysfonctionnement immunitaire, dysfonctionnement neurologique, dysfonctionnement cardiaque  avec tachycardie, arythmie et arrêt cardiaque soudain.

        L’hypersensibilité aux champs electromagnétiques (EHS) est brièvement
        mentionnée mais les similarités  existant  entre la cible des champs
        EMFs : les canaux calciques voltage-dépendant,  et la cible des produits
        chimiques dans l’hypersensibilité chimique/ MCS ; les récepteurs NMDA,
        tout ceci suggère une cause similaire pour ces 2 sensibilités qui sont

        Je propose un programme en deux phases qui a pour but d’améliorer
        grandement les standards de sécurité concernant les champs EMF et

        1-  La première phase vise à réduire les niveaux d’exposition de 100 à
        1000 fois
        2-  La seconde phase vise à mettre en place de véritables tests/examens
        biologiques visant à assurer la sécurité.

        Des approches spécifiques  visant à développer de tels tests/examens
        sont actuellement à l’étude et celles ci incluent des examens de mise en
        culture cellulaire ainsi qu’une expérimentation animale.

        Conclusions :

        1- Les standards de sécurité concernant les champs EMF et micro-ondes
        sont faux pour 3 raisons distinctes :
        –    Les effets sont dûs à l’activation des canaux calciques
        voltage-dépendants et non a l’effet thermique (chaleur)
        –    Plus de 20 000 études scientifiques font état d’effets
        biologiques observés alors que nos standards  de sécurité actuels
        prévoient  que  ces effets ne devraient pas exister.
        –    Les champs pulsés sont plus actifs au niveau biologique que
        les champs non pulsés

        2- Une grande variété des effets observés suite à l’exposition aux
        champs EMF peut s’expliquer comme étant causée par l’activation des
        canaux calciques voltage-dépendants.

        Ceci est un changement de paradigme concernant l’action des champs
        EMF et micro-ondes.  Nous passons d’un effet thermique(chaleur) à un
        effet dû à l’activation des canaux calciques (VGCC).

        Cela n’exclue d’ailleurs pas le fait qu’il puisse exister d’autres
        effets indépendants uniquement liés aux  VGCC bien qu’à ce jour, aucun
        ne soit connu.

        3-     Des standards de sécurité cohérents concernant les  champs EMF et
        Micro-ondes doivent maintenant être développés. Ceux ci doivent être
        basés sur les réels effets biologiques. Ils ne doivent plus être basés
        sur des effets thermiques (chaleur) appartenant à la fiction.

        Le premier pas est de diminuer les niveaux d’exposition de 100 à 1000 fois en comparaison avec les standards actuels de sécurité.

        Martin. L . Pall