Mese: Dicembre 2015

In Alto Adige una scuola azzera l’elettrosmog – Grazie ad un progetto con il Centro tutela consumatori

[Articolo di qualche mese fa, che racconta la lodevole iniziativa di una scuola di Merano per promuovere negli alunni la consapevolezza sui danni causati dalla esposizione ai Campi Elettromagnetici in Alta Frequenza tipici della tecnologia Wireless.

L’uso del Wi-Fi non è essenziale e si possono benissimo utilizzare soluzioni cablate per gestire le varie attività all’interno delle scuole, cosa peraltro raccomandabile considerati i notevoli rischi per la salute derivanti dall’uso del Wireless.]

16 luglio 2015 – “www.rinnovabili.it”

Che effetto ha l’elettrosmog sugli esseri viventi? Un esperimento nella scuola di Merano ha portato ad abolire le fonti di inquinamento elettromagnetico

In Alto Adige una scuola azzera l'elettrosmog -

(Rinnovabili.it) – Ridurre l’elettrosmog tra i banchi di scuola. È la missione intrapresa dai ragazzi della quarta elementare nelle scuole De Amicis e Maia Alta di Merano, in provincia di Bolzano. Dopo aver partecipato alle lezioni in cui è stato invitato un consulente del Centro tutela consumatori, gli alunni hanno dato vita ad una iniziativa. L’intenzione era toccare con mano l’inquinamento elettromagnetico, per comprenderne le ricadute sulla natura e gli esseri viventi. Così, le classi quarte hanno condotto un esperimento sui vegetali: alcune vaschette, contenenti piantine di crescione, sono state coltivate in due punti distinti. Il primo ambiente era caratterizzato da un alto livello di elettrosmog, il secondo no. Si tratta di una metodologia di ricerca chiamata “esperimento caso-controllo”: un gruppo di soggetti con le stesse caratteristiche di partenza, in questo caso le piante, viene diviso in due. Uno soltanto viene sottoposto ad una specifica variazione del contesto, per scoprire se essa influisce e in che modo sul risultato finale.

In Alto Adige una scuola azzera l'elettrosmog«Il confronto tra il crescione irradiato e quello coltivato in ambiente meno esposto non ha lasciato dubbi – racconta il quotidiano on line Alto AdigeLe piantine irradiate sono risultate ingiallite e meno rigogliose rispetto a quelle collocate in ambiente meno esposto, pur curate e annaffiate nel medesimo modo».

La classe, poi, munita di strumenti appositi, ha mappato tutto l’edificio, scoprendo che era pervaso da segnali elettromagnetici fino ad un livello massimodi 3.000 microwatt per metro quadro. Hanno saputo dalla preside che servivano all’organizzazione della comunicazione con il personale non docente, per gestire la presenza dei ragazzi nella mensa o rispondere alle varie necessità logistiche all’interno della scuola.

Il plesso è completamente cablato, dunque non serve ad ogni costo un sistema di comunicazione senza fili. Così, è stata inoltrata una richiesta al Comune di Merano per ottenere la disattivazione dei ripetitori distribuiti all’interno della scuola. Il personale ha abbandonato i cordless e ricominciato ad utilizzare i normali telefoni interni. Una volte ripetute le misurazioni, sono stati ottenuti risultati sorprendenti: da 3 mila microwatt si era scesi ad appena 5. Il mentre il governo italiano cerca di alzare le soglie per facilitare la comunicazione 4G e promuove il Wi-Fi nelle scuole, nonostante una lettera firmata da 70 scienziati che chiede di evitare uno tsunami di onde elettromagnetiche nei luoghi di vita quotidiana.

Fonte:

http://www.rinnovabili.it/ambiente/alto-adige-scuola-elettrosmog-333/

Gli scienziati affermano che il Wi-Fi può portare gravi rischi per la salute

[Articolo datato ma che vale la pena leggere, traduzione in italiano di un articolo originariamente scritto in portoghese sul sito “www.hypescience.com”.]

3 agosto 2015 – “www.pianetablunews.it”

Uno squilibrio metabolico causato dalla radiazione dei nostri dispositivi wireless può essere collegato ad alcuni rischi per la salute, come ad esempio varie malattie neurodegenerative e persino il cancro, suggerisce uno studio pubblicato di recente.

Questo squilibrio, noto anche come stress ossidativo, è definito dal co-autore Igor Yakymenko come “uno squilibrio tra la produzione di specie reattive dell’ossigeno (ROS) e difesa antiossidante.”

Yakymenko spiega che lo stress ossidativo a causa di un esposizione a radiofrequenza è in grado di spiegare non solo i tumori ma anche altri disturbi minori come il mal di testa, affaticamento e irritazione della pelle, che possono verificarsi dopo l’esposizione a lungo termine.“Questi effetti sono un chiaro segno dei rischi reali di questo tipo di radiazioni per la  salute umana”, avverte.

Attenzione al Wi-fi

L’articolo spiega che i ROS, che sono spesso prodotti nelle cellule a causa di ambienti aggressivi possono anche essere indotti dalla “radiazione wireless comune”.

Una recente ricerca mostra i possibili effetti cancerogeni delle radiofrequenza (RFR) e la radiazione a microonde. Nel 2011, l’Agenzia Internazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro RFR la classificata come possibile cancerogena per l’uomo. Ma la mancanza di una chiara spiegazione dei meccanismi molecolari di tali effetti di RFR non ha aiutato l’accettazione di un reale rischio. L’articolo dimostra che gli effetti pericolosi di RFR potrebbero essere sviluppati attraverso la “meccanica classica” di perdita di valore ossidativo nelle cellule viventi.

Yakymenko e i suoi colleghi avvertono di un approccio precauzionale nell’utilizzo di tecnologie wireless, come telefoni cellulari e internet wireless. [ Science Daily ]

Fonte: http://hypescience.com/wi-fi-saude/

Fonte:

http://www.pianetablunews.it/?p=23546

Cellulari e wi-fi: la salute tra interessi, ricerca e opinioni

[Articolo datato, ma che vale la pena leggere…

Evidenziamo quanto segue:
Ma la cosa più allarmante sembra essere il conflitto di interessi all’interno del gruppo di lavoro di esperti che ha prodotto il documento. La potenza economica e gli interessi che fanno capo alle aziende della telecomunicazione non possono certo essere sottovalutati. Pur senza alcun pregiudizio o bias, la salute dei cittadini richiede massima trasparenza e giudizi imparziali. Il rischio è la sfiducia e la disinformazione.

Per tale motivo non può passare sotto silenzio questo aspetto se, come si denuncia, quasi metà dei componenti * del gruppo di lavoro (5 su 12) ha avuto rapporti o finanziamenti diretti o indiretti da parte delle società con interessi nella telefonia. Due degli esperti sono italiani (CNR-Irea): ma per loro nessuna accusa di possibili conflitti di interesse.]

18 marzo 2015 – “apiccoledosi.blogautore.repubblica.it”, di Maurizio Paganelli

“I gravissimi rischi per la salute e per l’ambiente connessi all’esposizione crescente a campi elettromagnetici a radiofrequenza e microonde che sono emessi da cellulari, tablet, smartphone, computer collegati in reti senza fili, antenne Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, radar, ripetitori della radiofonia, della radiotelevisione e della telefonia mobile DECT, GSM, UMTS e LTE (4G)”: è la preoccupazione e l’incubo di tanti ed è quanto denunciano gruppi sempre più variegati di specialisti (medici, fisici, biologi, chimici, ingegneri..), ultimo l’appello inviato al primo ministro Matteo Renzi e primi firmatari Livio Giuliani (fisico, ex-ISPESL), Fiorenzo Marinelli (biologo, CNR), Mauro Cristaldi (associato di Anatomia Comparata, Biologia Sapienza-Università di Roma), Mario C. Canciani (pediatra). La base di partenza è sempre la medesima: “L’Agenzia Internazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro ha classificato nel 2011 la radiofrequenza come “possibile cancerogeno per l’Uomo” in Classe 2B, smentendo che esistono solo effetti termici di tali campi”.

L’Arpat, Agenzia protezione ambientale, sostiene che “a distanza di più di quaranta anni, in Italia assistiamo ancora ad un elevato livello di preoccupazione e di percezione del rischio da campi elettromagnetici da parte dei cittadini, che non sembrano sufficientemente rassicurati da normative e politiche che sono in realtà molto cautelative rispetto al resto d’Europa, grazie a limiti estremamente restrittivi. Anche la revisione normativa in corso (vedi Strategia Italiana per la banda ultralarga), che propone di uniformare i limiti nazionali a quelli europei in materia di elettro-magnetismo (innalzandoli, quindi), necessita di un adeguato processo di comunicazione e informazione verso il pubblico”.

Proprio a inizio marzo è stata resa pubblica la “Final opinion” voluta dalla Commissione Europea del gruppo di lavoro di esperti sui possibili effetti sulla salute dell’esposizione ai campi elettromagnetici.

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-safety/dyna/enews/enews.cfm?al_id=1581

In sintesi: esclusi rischi di incremento di tumori al cervello o tumori testa-collo, nessun aumento di casi di Alzheimer o demenze collegati ai campi elettromagnetici o radiofrequenze, né per le leucemie o altri tipi di cancro (“Epidemiological studies link exposure to Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) fields, from long-term living in close proximity to power lines for example, to a higher rate of childhood leukaemia, which is a rare blood cancer. This correlation has neither been explained nor supported by animal and cellular studies. So far, research findings were not able to find a possible mechanism to explain this association. More research is needed to confirm or exclude a possible causal association”). Ma subito alcune associazioni internazionali, tra le quali, in Italia, AMICA (Associazione malattie da intossicazione cronica e/o ambientale), denunciano che tale rapporto è “di parte e che non tiene conto degli studi che propendono per un rischio per la salute causato dalle radiofrequenze”.

Ma la cosa più allarmante sembra essere il conflitto di interessi all’interno del gruppo di lavoro di esperti che ha prodotto il documento. La potenza economica e gli interessi che fanno capo alle aziende della telecomunicazione non possono certo essere sottovalutati. Pur senza alcun pregiudizio o bias, la salute dei cittadini richiede massima trasparenza e giudizi imparziali. Il rischio è la sfiducia e la disinformazione.

Per tale motivo non può passare sotto silenzio questo aspetto se, come si denuncia, quasi metà dei componenti * del gruppo di lavoro (5 su 12) ha avuto rapporti o finanziamenti diretti o indiretti da parte delle società con interessi nella telefonia. Due degli esperti sono italiani (CNR-Irea): ma per loro nessuna accusa di possibili conflitti di interesse.

Le associazioni europee sottolineano che questa “Final opinion” è frutto del “lavoro” di un gruppo di esperti, “impegnati in una tesi di negazione del rischio e favorevole agli interessi dell’industria del settore, anche a causa del conflitto di interessi diretto in molti degli autori”. “In primo luogo, il suo presidente Theodoros Samaras, è stato un consulente di Vodafone. Accanto a lui si possono citare Matts-Olof Mattsson e Hans K Mild (membri del Comitato Scientifico Telia Sonera), Zenon Sienkiewicz (consulente di Japan Electrical Safety & Environment Technology Laboratories, emanazione della Japan Electric Association) e Anssi Auvinen (membro ICNIRP e regolarmente finanziato dalla MMF, il Forum dei produttori di telefonia mobile)”. Caso a parte poi, ma sembrerebbe più un’accusa di bias (atteggiamento prevenuto: ma potrebbe essere un questione di metodologia degli studi effettuati e bocciati magari perché poco affidabili) riguardo Joachim Schüz che “aveva sistematicamente scartato, nella relazione pre-rapporto resa pubblica nel febbraio 2014, gli studi che mostrano danni alla salute relativi ai tumori cerebrali legati all’uso del telefono cellulare”. Da tutto questo un reclamo delle associazioni alla Mediazione (possibilità prevista da parte della Commissione europea) e una richiesta alla Commissione di scartare le cunclusioni del gruppo di esperti. Razionalità e basi scientifiche dovrebbero guidarci in questi delicati casi, riflettere e informarsi prima di emettere giudizi.

Ma sembra confermarsi la snobistica affermazione di un grande scrittore francese: “Insomma a essere capaci di pensare sono pochissimi ma opinioni vogliono averne tutti”.

 

* SCENIHR members: Prof. Theodoros Samaras, (Chair and co-rapporteur from April 2013) University of Thessaloniki, GR

Prof. Norbert Leitgeb, retired, Graz University of Technology, AT

External experts: Prof. Anssi Auvinen, University of Tampere and STUK – Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, FI

Prof. Dr. Heidi Danker-Hopfe, Charité University of Medicine, Berlin, DE

Dr. Kjell Hansson Mild, Umeå University, SE

Prof. Mats-Olof Mattsson, (Chair of the working group until March 2013 and co- rapporteur) Austrian Institute of Technology, AU

Dr. Hannu Norppa, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, FI

Dr. G. James Rubin, King’s College London, UK

Dr. Maria Rosaria Scarfí, CNR-IREA, IT

Dr Joachim Schüz, International Agency for Research on Cancer, FR

Dr. Zenon Sienkiewicz, Public Health England, UK

Dr. Olga Zeni, CNR-IREA, IT

Fonte:

http://apiccoledosi.blogautore.repubblica.it/2015/03/18/cellulari-e-wi-fi-la-salute-tra-interessi-ricerca-e-opinioni/

«Noi, malati di Wi-fi»

19 dicembre 2015 – “www.vanityfair.it”, di Alessio Caprodossi

Si chiamano elettrosensibili e non possono (o riescono a) vivere in presenza di campi elettromagnetici. Come Caterina, che un giorno vide il suo corpo gonfiarsi. E da allora vive giorno e notte in cucina

Immaginate di vivere in due metri quadrati, 24 ore su 24, sette giorni su sette. In pratica per tutta la vita. È la vita di Caterina, costretta a non muoversi dalle mura di una cucina per colpa di una malattia poco nota quanto tremenda. Si chiama elettrosensibilità (che nei casi peggiori diventa ipersensibilità), un problema che causa l’esposizione a campi elettrici, magnetici ed elettromagnetici crea numerosi fastidi, come emicrania, vertigine, disturbo del sonno, vuoti di memoria, sbalzi di pressioni, dermatiti, formicolii cutanei, stanchezza cronica e calo della vista. Per completezza, c’è da dire che i pareri in merito sono contrastanti, e per molti studi scientifici i i sintomi non sono direttamente legati ai campi elettromagnetici, ma al cosiddetto effetto nocebo: se una persona affetta da elettrosensibilità pensa di essere esposta, comincia a manifestare i sintomi. Il disagio, in ogni caso, è assolutamente reale.

«ALL’IMPROVVISO VIDI IL MIO CORPO GONFIARSI»
A quattro esami dalla laurea in medicina e con tanti sogni da realizzare in ambito lavorativo e famigliare, la vita di Caterina (nome di fantasia) è cambiata radicalmente con l’acquisto di un telefono con tecnologia LTE: «Una volta comprato il nuovo telefono iniziai ad avvertire forti mal di testa, sbandamenti, svenimenti e cadute. Un giorno, poi, in uno studio di avvocati mi sono seduta per caso vicino a un router e all’improvviso il mio corpo iniziò a gonfiarsi».

L’ELETTROSENSIBILITA’
Così Caterina ha scoperto il suo problema, che secondo gli studi dell’Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità riguarda il 3% della popolazione globale, «colpevole» come la ragazza di non tollerare le onde provenienti da cordless, smartphone e reti Wi-Fi. Queste ultime, più dei cellulari – che gli elettrosensibili ovviamente non possono usare – sono il fulcro del problema, poiché pur se banditi nelle proprie case, sono presenti e attivi in quelle dei vicini finendo così per colpire gli intolleranti alle onde.

«PER FAVORE, SPEGNETE IL WI-FI DI NOTTE»
«Di fronte alle mie richieste di spegnere le stazioni Wi-Fi almeno durante la notte, sono stata derisa e vittima di atti di bullismo dagli abitanti del condominio dei miei genitori, dove sono dovuta tornare dopo aver lasciato il mio appartamento, inadatto per le mie necessità. E vivo nell’incubo che qualcuno arrivi ad abitare al piano di sotto, che con la presenza di una rete Wi-Fi aggraverebbe di molto la mia situazione».

Cucina copia

LA VITA PASSATA IN CUCINA
Caterina passa ogni giornata all’interno della cucina, che ha schermato con oggetti metallici. E la notte dorme su una sedia a sdraio: «Dopo due anni, però, sono arrivate le fratture su tre costole e nonostante i dolori non posso andare in ospedale, perché la presenza di forti segnali sarebbe ancor più dolorosa da sopportare».

IL PENSIERO DI FARLA FINITA
Caterina ci ha pensato. Ha pensato più volte di farla finita, emulando così la 15enne Jenny Fry, adolescente inglese suicidatasi perché stanca di convivere con i dolori provocati dall’impianto Wi-Fi della sua scuola: «Io non posso pensare al mio futuro, non devo pensare al mio domani ma solo aspettare il giorno in cui l’elettro-sensibilità verrà riconosciuta come malattia invalidante anche in Italia».

LE MISURE NEGLI ALTRI PAESI
Questa è la battaglia che conduce l’Associazione Italiana Elettrosensibili, da oltre dieci anni attiva per convincere il governo italiano a seguire l’esempio della Svezia, dove i 2,5 milioni di elettrosensibili ricevono un contributo economico dai comuni e i datori di lavoro sono obbligati a trovare una condizione sostenibile per i dipendenti. È un caso quasi unico nel panorama europeo: l’elettrosensibilità infatti non è riconosciuta come una malattia né dall’Oms né dalla comunità scientifica perché i sintomi, nonostante siano stati riconosciuti come invalidanti, sono vissuti in prima persona e difficili da verificare.

ALMENO 600 MILA ELETTROSENSIBILI IN ITALIA
Gli elettrosensibili e in misura maggiore gli ipersensibili tendono a una vita solitaria; c’è chi vive nei boschi, chi nelle caverne, chi si trasferisce in piccoli centri montani oppure chi si rifugia in macchina per passare la notte. Le condizioni di vita minano anche la tenuta psicologica, con numeri allarmanti per l’Italia, dove la stima si aggira tra 1% e il 3% della popolazione (tra i 600 mila e gli 1,8 milioni di individui).

UNA CITTA’ SENZA ONDE ELETTROMAGNETICHE
«Noi viviamo il problema come una fuga dalla città, per questo lottiamo per avere un riconoscimento che ci consenta di vivere in una condizione decorosa», spiega Paolo Orio, vice presidente dell’A.i.e. che sottolinea come anche l’Assemblea Parlamentare del Consiglio d’Europa abbia messo in guardia gli stati membri nel «dover prestare attenzione a chi soffre di intolleranza ai campi elettromagnetici e di introdurre specifiche misure per proteggerli, inclusa la realizzazione di aree non coperte dalle reti wireless». Per questo l’A.i.e. sta provando a replicare l’esempio di Green Bank, cittadina americana nel West Virginia sorta per accogliere gli elettrosensibili, dove sono banditi telefoni, reti Wi-Fi, tv e radio. «Stiamo valutando dove poter creare una soluzione di questo tipo, anche perché ci arrivano tante richieste pure dall’estero» dichiara Orio, indicando nella Toscana la potenziale terra della salvezza.

Fonte:

http://www.vanityfair.it/news/italia/15/12/19/elettrosensibili-italia

Effect of man-made electromagnetic fields on common Brassicaceae Lepidium sativum (cress d’Alinois) seed germination: a preliminary replication study / Efecto de campos magnéticos artificiales en la germinación de Lepidium sativum (Brassicaceae): un estudio preliminar

[Il presente lavoro è stato condotto in conseguenza dell’esperimento svolto da un gruppo di ragazze Danesi (Lea Nielson, Mathilde Nielsen, Signe Nielsen, Sisse Coltau e Rikke Holm) alla Hjallerup Skole, sotto la supervisione del loro insegnante di biologia il sig. Kim Horsevad.
Queste ragazze hanno presentato il suddetto esperimento come parte di una fiera/concorso della scienza nazionale per gli studenti delle scuole superiori, del quale maggiori informazioni possono essere trovate al seguente sito: 
www.ungeforskere.dk.
Tutto è iniziato quando le ragazze si sono accorte di avere difficoltà di concentrazione durante le lezioni e pensarono che la causa di queste (ed anche dei loro disturbi del sonno) potesse essere in relazione con il fatto di tenere il cellulare acceso di fianco al letto durante la notte.
Così hanno esposto dei semi di crescione alle emissioni elettromagnetiche tipiche dei cellulari per valutarne gli effetti biologici.

Cammaerts e Johansson hanno utilizzato i semi della Brassicacea Lepidium sativum (crescione d’Alinois), appurando che sotto gli effetti di alti livelli di radiazione (70-100 W / m2 = 175 mV / m)  non sono germinati.
Infatti, il primo passo della germinazione dei semi – ad esempio le imbibizioni delle cellule germinali – non ha potuto verificarsi in presenza della radiazione, mentre all’interno del compost umido tali imbibizioni si sono verificate e le radici si sono esilmente sviluppate.
Quando rimossi dal campo elettromagnetico, i semi sono germinati normalmente.

Quindi la radiazione è stata molto probabilmente la causa del mancato verificarsi delle imbibizioni e germinazioni dei semi.

In entrambi i casi deve essersi senz’altro trattato di EFFETTO NOCEBO: d’altra parte è ben nota a tutti la incredibile suscettibilità psicologica dei semi di crescione  😉 !]

Phyton, International Journal of Experimental Botany ISSN 0031 9457 (2015) 84: 132-137

by:
Cammaerts MC (1) & O Johansson (2)

(1) Faculté des sciences, DBO, CP 160/12, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 50, Av. F. D. Roosevelt, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.
(2) The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Address Correspondence to: Marie-Claire Cammaerts, e-mail: mtricot@ulb.ac.be

ARTICLE INFO

Article history
Received: 27 March 2014
Accepted: 19 May 2014
Published: 2015

Keywords
Imbibitions; Seeds; Water; Wireless waves

ABSTRACT

Under high levels of radiation (70-100 µW/m2 =175 mV/m), seeds of Brassicaceae Lepidium sativum (cress d’Alinois) never germinated. In fact, the first step of seeds’ germination ‒ e.g. imbibitions of germinal cells ‒ could not occur under radiation, while inside the humid compost such imbibitions occurred and roots slightly developed. When removed from the electromagnetic field, seeds germinated normally. The radiation was, thus, most likely the cause of the non-occurrence of the seeds’ imbibitions and germination.

RESUMEN

Las semillas de Lepidium sativum, Brassicaceae, nunca germinaron bajo altos niveles de radiación (70-100 µW/m2 =175 mV/m). En realidad, el primer paso en la germinación de las semillas – ej. imbibición de las células germinales – no ocurrió bajo radiación, mientras que tal imbibición ocurrió dentro del compost húmedo y las raíces desarrollaron un poco. Cuando las semillas fueron removidas del campo magnético, las mismas desarrollaron normalmente. La radiación fue obviamente la causa que no ocurriera la imbibición y la germinación de las semillas.

INTRODUCTION

The present work was undertaken consequently to that performed by a group of Danish girls (Lea Nielson, Mathilde Nielsen, Signe Nielsen, Sisse Coltau and Rikke Holm), at Hjallerup Skole, under the supervision of their biology teacher Mr. Kim Horsevad. These girls made an experiment as a part of a national science fair/competition for high school pupils about which more information can be found at the website
www.ungeforskere.dk
All started when the girls had difficulties concentrating in their lessons. “We all thought we experienced concentration problems in school if we slept with our mobile phones at the bedside, and sometimes we also found we had difficulties sleeping”. The five girls took 400 cress seeds and randomly spread them into 12 trays. They then placed the trays in two different rooms, at the same temperature, six in each room.
They gave to the trays the same amount of water and sunlight over 12 days, but exposed six of the trays to mobile phone radiation. In other words, six trays of seeds were placed in a room with no radiation, while six were placed in another room alongside two activated routers emitted roughly the same type of radiation as a common mobile phone. The results were obvious: the cress seeds alongside the routers did not grow at all, and some even seemingly mutated or died.
The students repeated their experiment twice. The results in both were equally dramatic, and showed a dose-response effect between the two batches. The statistical significance of the biomass reduction in the students’ tests with a p-value (2-tail) of <0.000005 is thought-provoking!
Great effort was made to characterize and measure the premises’ background electromagnetic fields and the climatic conditions. No obvious confounders were then found that could give rise to – and explain – the different growth of the irradiated and the non-irradiated seeds.
It would be tempting to just discard such observations since they have not been performed under controlled conditions, thus not following all the rules of sciences. But often, observations done outside of the regular laboratory environments are the start of new discoveries. So, we decided to try to replicate the girls’ work.
Man-made electromagnetic waves have actually largely been shown to have adverse effects on living organisms. They affect, for instance, mammals (Adang et al., 2006; Benlaidi & Kharroussi, 2011), birds (Everaert & Bauwens, 2007), amphibians (Balmori, 2006), bees (Kimmel et al., 2007, Sharma & Kumar, 2010; Favre, 2011), ants (Cammaerts et al., 2012, 2013), fruit flies (Panagopoulos et al., 2004; Panagopoulos, 2012), and even protozoa (Cammaerts et al., 2011). In fact, they act firstly and essentially on the cellular membrane and so affect any living organism (Cammaerts et al., 2011). Such waves have also been shown to impact plants (Roux et al., 2008; Haggerty, 2010), at physiological and ecological levels.
In order to bring some new information on the subject, we here examine if man-made electromagnetic waves impact plants’ germination and more precisely the first events occurring at the beginning of that germination. We are conscious that our observations are only preliminary ones and that further studies (replication, cytological observations, and physiological studies) are necessary to verify the present finding and to understand what is actually and exactly occurring in germinal cells under radiation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four identical series of seeds of Brassicaceae Lepidium sativum (cress d’Alinois) (same quantity, quality, origin, age) were deposited on identical compost (same initial sample), each one in an identical tray (20 cm x 15 cm x 4 cm). Compost is the commonly used material for obtaining germination of seeds. The compost was humidified with same quantity (100 ml) of the very same tap water. Two of these trays were set at a place where the electromagnetic field reached an intensity of 70 – 100 µW/m2 (= about 175 mV/m), this being mainly due to the presence of two communication masts at about 200 meters of distance (Fig. 1). The two other trays were set at another place where the electromagnetic field had an intensity of about 2 – 3 µW/m2 (= 30 mV/m). These two series of seeds, set under low radiation level, were used as the control sample.
Since the existing electromagnetic fields were generated by communication masts, the frequencies of the emitted waves were 900 MHz and/or 1,800 MHz. The intensity of the electromagnetic fields was measured using an HF 35 C radiation intensity meter for frequencies from 800 MHz to 23 GHz (Gigahertz solutions GmbH, Am Galgenberg 12, D-90579 Langenzenn, Germany). All the other environmental conditions were near-identical for each of the two double series of seeds (temperature = 20 °C, humidity = 70%, luminosity ≈ 300 lux). The seeds were then observed after four, seven and ten days, and tap water was poured on the compost, equally for each series of seeds, at regular intervals. When obvious differences were surprisingly observed between the seeds set under the two different levels of electromagnetism exposition, samples of seeds were removed, attentively observed and examined under a stereomicroscope. Seeds which had been maintained under two different levels of radiation were drawn using a camera lucida (magnification = 25x), and via these drawings, their length and their width (two orthogonal segments) were measured in mm. The means of the obtained values were established and the distributions of values (for the length on one hand, for the width on the other hand) corresponding to each two kinds of seeds were statistically compared using the nonparametric χ² tests, the level of probability being set at p<0.05 (Siegel & Castellan, 1989). After these assessments, samples of each kind of seeds were set under the lower exposure and observed once more after two days.

Cammaerts &amp; Johansson 2015

Germination did not occur under 70 – 100 μW/m2. After four days, the seeds set under the two different electromagnetic field strengths already differed: those under the lower level had begun to germinate while those under the higher level of electromagnetic field had not at all done so. After seven days in total, many seeds maintained under low level of exposure had completed their germination and other ones were in the process of their germination while the seeds set under the higher level of exposure appeared unchanged (when looking at them from above) (Fig. 2 A). The experiment was continued until a total of 10 days with, at that time, the same results as above: normal germination for the seeds under low radiation, apparently no germination for those set under the higher radiation.

In the humid compost, roots development occurred.  Ten days after the beginning of the experiment, seeds set under the higher exposure (having not germinated) as well as seeds maintained under low exposure (being in the process of their germination) were collected, i.e. taken using small pins and put into cups. First, they were visually examined, and after that, observed under the stereomicroscope.
First, while doing this manipulation, we clearly detected some external difference between the two kinds of seeds.
Those kept under higher radiation were dry, not clinging at all while those kept without nearly no radiation were wet, clinging, and often attached to one another.
Secondly, very surprisingly, inside the humid compost, small roots of seeds set under radiation had developed, nearly like for seeds kept without radiation, with the difference that, in the latter case, the roots were somewhat more developed (Fig. 2B). It might be possible that, inside the compost and the water it contains, the electromagnetic field either had a lower intensity (through shielding effects) or had its adverse effects decreased or even countered (compared to the situation existing above the compost). Of course, if the effects we see are dependent only on the radiation, the most sensitive plant parts would be the ones above the soil, and they would be the first to be affected/retracted/not developed.

Seeds’ imbibitions did not occur under 70 – 100 μW/m2. The two kinds of seed, collected as related above, were observed under a stereomicroscope, drawn (Fig. 2 C), and measured as explained in the ‘Material and methods’ section. For seeds set under 2 – 3 µW/m2, the two variables on average equaled 0.51 mm and 0.27 mm while for seeds set under 70 – 100 µW/m2, these variables on average equaled 0.45 mm and 0.21 mm. Statistically, 0.45 mm turned out only slightly different from 0.51 mm (χ² = 3.34; df = 1; p ≈ 0.05) while 0.21 mm strongly differed from 0.27 mm (χ² = 10.77; df = 1; p ≈ 0.001). The more affected variable was thus the seeds’ width. Consequently, it could be presumed that without radiation, seeds normally went through the expected imbibitions phenomenon (the first step of the plants’ germination) while under radiation, seeds were no longer able to go through this essential first step of their germination.

Cammaerts &amp; Johansson 2015 - 2

According to the previous observation (see previous paragraph), it may be added that the germinal cells of the roots, located inside (surrounded by) humid compost, could realize such imbibitions.

Seeds exposed were still alive. The two kinds of collected seeds were then taken out of their initial location and set, each one, in a small tray (10 cm x 5 cm x 4 cm), the two trays then being deposited side by side, in a room where the level of radiation was low (2 µW/m2). The seeds having begun their germination went on doing so and those having not germinated began to do so, this becoming apparent after two days (Fig. 2 D).

DISCUSSION

The fact that man-made electromagnetic waves probably have adverse effects on living organisms is actually more and more realized and admitted. Reviews on the subject exist (Pakhomov & Murphy, 2000; Fragopoulou et al., 2010; Sivani & Sudarsanam, 2012; Cucurachi et al., 2013). However, first, the mechanism underlying such adverse effects are not yet fully understood so it is difficult to counteract these effects while still going on using any wireless technology. Secondly, the revealed adverse effects apparently do not worry public health authorities, parliaments, governments, and – thus – not the general public who is not fully informed. Indeed, the wireless technology is actually more and more used, both for human work tasks and hobbies. Users are not worried probably because the revealed adverse effects appear not to be emergent for human beings, i.e. effects on Protozoan’s locomotion (Cammaerts et al., 2011), on Drosophila’s reproduction (Panagopoulos, 2012, Panagopoulos et al., 2004), on ants’ memory (Cammaerts et al., 2012) and response to pheromones (Cammaerts et al., 2013), on bees’ collection of pollen (Sharma & Kumar, 2010), on amphibian’s embryogenesis (Balmori, 2006), on rat’s memory (Adang et al., 2006), and so on, although they -of course- are! Here, we reveal yet an impact of man-made electromagnetic waves on a very important phenomenon: the germination of the seeds of plants. We show that the first essential step of the germination (= the imbibitions) seemingly does not occur under radiation and that the electromagnetic waves are the only likely cause of such a non-occurrence. We presume that the cellular membrane organization, the water and ions transfer through that membrane are perturbed. Indeed, we have previously shown that the cellular membrane is strongly affected by electromagnetism (Cammaerts et al., 2011), which explains, in our mind, the impact of such electromagnetism on nervous cells, reproduction and behavior. Other data are also in favor of such an assumption (see the review of Marino and Carrubba, 2009). Let us add that seeds are often deposited onto the ground and not set inside the earth, and are so potentially maximally exposed to electromagnetism. On the other hand, such electromagnetism has been shown to impact, among others, the health of plants (Belyavskaya, 2004; Roux et al., 2008; Haggerty, 2010; and four Web sites in the list of references). Plants are truly and very necessary for life on earth; people should now be very conscious of this potentially emerging problem!
In conclusion, the present investigation -although preliminary in its character- indicates that the prodigious wireless technology may effectively and seriously impact nature and should urgently be used much more cautiously (see also the published work of Doyon (2008)). The present study also brings some new information on the subject -effect of electromagnetism on plants- but it must be replicated on several plants species, at different independent laboratories, as well as developed further at the cytological and physiological levels by botanists, histologists and physiologists. Finally, in essence, it clearly supports the initial findings of Lea Nielson, Mathilde Nielsen, Signe Nielsen, Sisse Coltau and Rikke Holm, at Hjallerup Skole, under the supervision of their biology teacher Mr. Kim Horsevad.

Conflict of Interest Statement 
The authors know of no conflict of interest related to this work.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Olle Johansson was supported for this study by the Karolinska Institute, and Einar Rasmussen, Kristiansand S, Norway, Brian Stein, Melton Mowbray, Leicestereshire, UK, The Irish Campaign against Microwave Pollution, and the Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA; Cumann Comhshaoil Dhoctuiri na hEireann), are gratefully acknowledged for their general support.

REFERENCES

Adang, D., B. Campo & A. Vander Vorst (2006). Has a 970 MHz Pulsed Exposure an Effect on the Memory Related Behaviour of Rats? Wireless Technology 135-138.

Balmori, A. (2006). The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on the amphibian decline: Is this an important piece of the puzzle?  Toxicology and Environmental Chemistry 88: 287-299.

Belyavskaya, N.A. (2004). Biological effects due to weak magnetic field on plants. Advances in Space Research 34: 1566-1574.

Benlaidi, F.Z. & M. El Kharroussi (2011). Effets des ondes électromagnétiques générées par le GSM sur la mémoire et le comportement chez le rat. http://sites.google.com/site/9drineuro/r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9s6.

Cammaerts, M.-C., O. Debeir & R. Cammaerts (2011). Changes in Paramecium caudatum (Protozoa) near a switched-on GSM telephone.
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 30: 57-66.

Cammaerts, M.-C., P. De Doncker, X. Patris, F. Bellens, Z. Rachidi & D. Cammaerts (2012). GSM 900 MHz radiations inhibits ants’ association between food sites and encountered cues. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 31: 151-165. DOI: 10.3109/15368378.2011.624661.

Cammaerts, M.-C., Z. Rachidi, F. Bellens & P. De Doncker (2013).
Food collection and responses to pheromones in an ant species exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 1-18,Q Informa UK Ltd ISSN 1536-8378 print/ISSN 1536-8386 online DOI: 10.3109/15368378.2012.712877.

Cucurachi, S., W.L. Tamis, M.G. Vijver et al. (2013). A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environnement International Journal 51: 116-140. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0160412012002334.

Doyon, P.R. (2008). Are the microwaves killing the insects, frogs, and birds? And are we next? http://www.thenhf.com/article. php?id5480.

Everaert, J. & D. Bauwens (2007). A possible effect of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations on the number of breeding house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 26: 63-72.

Favre, D. (2011). Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping.
Apidologie, Springlink.com DOI: 10.1007/s13592-011-0016-x.

Fragopoulou, A., Y. Grigoriev, O. Johansson et al. (2010). Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: Consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. Scientific Meeting: Seletun,
Norway, November 17-21, 2009. Review of Environment and Health 25: 307-317.

Haggerty, K. (2010). Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings: Preliminary Observations. International Journal of Forestry Research, DOI: 10.1155/2010/836278. article ID 836278, 7 p.

Kimmel, S., J. Kuhn, W. Harst et al. (2007). Electromagnetic Radiation:
Influences on Honeybees (Apis mellifera). www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/kimmel_iaas_pdf

Marino, A.A. & A. Carrubba (2009). The effects of mobile phone electromagnetic fields on brain electrical activity: A critical review
of literature. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 28: 250-274. http://andrewamarino.com/PDFs/CellphoneEMFs-Review.pdf.

Pakhomov, A.G. & M.B. Murphy (2000). Comprehensive review of the research on biological effects of pulsed radiofrequency. Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living System 3: 265-290. http://www.mtt-serbia.org.rs/microwave_review/pdf/Vol11No2-03-IBelyaev.pdf

Panagopoulos, D.J. (2012). Gametogenesis, embryonic and postembryonic development of Drosophila melanogaster, as a model system for the assessment of radiation and environmental genotoxicity. Drosophila melanogaster, lifecycle, genetics… Ed M. Spindler-Barth, Nova Science Publishers, Inc, 1-38.

Panagopoulos, D.J., A. Karabarbounis & L.H. Margaritis (2004). Effect of GSM 900-MHz mobile phone radiation on the reproductive capacity of Drosophila melanogaster. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 23: 29-43.
Roux, D., A. Vian., S. Girard, P. Bonnet, F. Paladian, E. Davies & G. Ledoigt (2008). High frequency (900 MHz) low amplitude (5 V/m) electromagnetic field: a genuine environmental stimulus that affects transcription, translation, calcium and energy charge in tomato. Planta 227: 883-891.

Sharma, V.P. & N.R. Kumar (2010). Changes in honeybee behavior and biology under the influence of cellphone radiations. Current Science 98: 1376-1378.

Siegel, S. & N.J. Castellan (1989). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. – McGraw-Hill Book Company, Singapore, 396 p.

Sivani, S. & D. Sudarsanam (2012). Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless
devices on biosystem and ecosystem – a review. Biology and Medicine 4: 202-21.

http://www.wageningenuniversity.nl/NL/nieuwsagenda/nieuws/Bomen101120.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1332310/Is-Wi-Fikilling-trees-Dutch-study-shows-leaves-dying-exposure-Wi-Fi-radiation.html

http://readwriteweb.com/cloud/2010/11/study-wi-fi-is-makingour-tree.php

http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/fr/Blog/le-wi-fi-tuerait-les-arbres/blog/33569/

Source/Fonte:

http://www.mast-victims.org/resources/docs/Cammaerts-Johansson-watercress-replication-2015.pdf

New study links cell phone tower radiation to diabetes

[Cresce sempre più in ogni parte del mondo la consapevolezza dei numerosi effetti nocivi dei Campi Elettromagnetici, i cui effetti pleiotropici possono provocare una vasta gamma di danni all’organismo.

In un recente studio, il prof. Sultan Ayoub Meo del King Saud University’s College of Medicine in Arabia Saudita, ha dimostrato la relazione tra CEM e Diabete.]

27 december 2015 – “www.arabnews.com”, by GHAZANFAR ALI KHAN

• Top KSU scientist sounds danger warning

file-26-mobile-tower.jpg

Sultan-Ayoub-Meo
Prof. Sultan Ayoub Meo.

RIYADH: A renowned professor of King Saud University (KSU) here has warned of radiation danger from cell phone towers, saying that the radiation emissions from towers can cause many health hazards because of their dense installations and unscientific proliferation.

In a new study, Prof. Sultan Ayoub Meo, a professor at KSU’s College of Medicine, has for the first time proved that the radiation from towers also causes diabetes mellitus.

Sultan, whose research findings on radiation from mobile phone base station towers (MPBST) has been published in the “International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health”, a reputable Swiss science journal, said that “this is the first study added in the global science literature about radiation and its link with type 2 diabetes mellitus.”

The study is based on the effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Filed Radiation (RF-EMFR) generated by MPBSTs on hemoglobin.

Sultan’s new study has also raised a question mark over the safety of cell phone towers in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East countries. It is interesting to note here that the use of mobile phones has markedly increased among both gender and all age groups in the Kingdom and across the world during the last two decades. He said that “there are about 7.3 billion mobile subscriptions worldwide, and this figure is more than the world’s population.” Spelling out the main findings of his study, Sultan told Arab News in an exclusive interview that “radiation generated by mobile phones and their base stations towers ranges between 400 MHz and 3 GHz.”

Mobile phone companies, Sultan said, installed towers in residential and commercial areas including on/near school buildings, which has stirred up widespread public concern about the hazards of RF-EMF radiation.

He also said that the radiation emanating from towers causes many other health hazards like headache, depression, high blood pressure and sleep disorders besides damaging nervous, cardio-vascular as well as reproductive systems.

The KSU professor said that about 382 million people globally are suffering from diabetes mellitus, and this number is expected to surge to 592 million by 2035 as per the data shared by the International Diabetic Federation. “In 2014 alone, a total of 4.9 million people died due to the complications of diabetes mellitus,” said Sultan, adding that this deadly disease took the life of one individual every seven seconds.

In this new research study, which for the first time discovered the link between cell tower radiation and diabetes; Sultan and his colleagues selected two different elementary schools in Riyadh region.

The team led by Sultan selected 159 apparently healthy students (96 from one school and 63 from another school) of the same age, gender, nationality, regional, cultural and socio-economic status.

Blood samples were collected from all the students and the HbA1c was analyzed.  The team found that the students, who were exposed to high RF-EMF generated by MPBS had significantly higher HbA1c than the students who were exposed to low RF-EMF.

Source/Fonte:

http://www.arabnews.com/featured/news/856296

THORNER: CELL PHONE DANGERS: INDUSTRY DENIES TRUTH – PART 2

4 december 2015 – “illinoisreview.typepad.com”, by Nancy Thorner

Cell-phones

The public has been intentionally misled by industry and utility propaganda to believe that smart meters are safe because cell phones are safe. The usual defensive comment is that a smart meter will emit less Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) than a cell phone call. So why should we worry?

This link conveys the findings of Dr. George Carlo, who oversaw the comprehensive research group Wireless Technology Research (WTR) commissioned by the cell phone industry in the mid-1990s. When Carlo’s research began to reveal how there were indeed serious health concerns with cell phones, the industry sought to bury the results. Carlo’s research has since been validated by a wealth of subsequent studies and has continuing relevance given the ubiquity of wireless devices.

“The main health concern with electromagnetic radiation emitted by wireless technologies is that EMF and RF cause a breakdown in the communication between cells in the body, interrupting DNA repair and weakening tissue and organ function.”

In an article entitled “Radiation from Wireless Technology Affects the Blood, the Heart, and the Autonomic Nervous System” (November 2013), Dr. Magda Havas addresses the health conditions that most individuals would find a moreimminent threat than the long-term carcinogenic effects discussed in Part 1.  According to Dr. Havas, symptoms that can appear as an early-warning signal of excessive RF radiation exposure are “fatigue, sleep disturbance, headaches, feeling of discomfort, difficulty concentrating, depression, memory loss, visual disruptions, irritability, hearing disruptions, skin problems, cardiovascular problems, dizziness, loss of appetite, movement difficulties, and nausea.” Dr. Havas has coined the phrase, “Rapid Aging Syndrome” to cover many of the health effects caused by radio frequency radiation exposure.

Is Anyone Sounding the Alarm?

In May 2015, 190 scientists from 39 nations submitted an appeal to the United Nations, UN member states, and the World Health Organization (WHO) requesting they adopt more protective exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless technology in the face of increasing evidence of risk.  The International EMF Scientist Appeal calls upon the United Nations and the World Health Organization to address the emerging public health crisis related to cell phones, wireless devices, wireless utility [smart] meters and wireless infrastructure in neighborhoods and to substantially reduce human exposures to non-ionizing radiation.

Although it is not as well known to the public, Lloyds of London considers the risk too high to cover claims for illnesses related to RF exposure from cell phone use. The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion 32 states, “The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure through mobile phone usage. We will not make any payment on your behalf for any claim, or incur any costs and expenses, or reimburse you for any loss, damage, legal expenses, fees or costs sustained by you, or pay any medical expenses. This would include the microwave radiation and electromagnetic radiation emitted from Smart Meters.

An A. M. Best bulletin in 2013 is entitled, “Emerging Technologies Pose Significant Risks with Possible Long-Tail Losses.” RF (Radio Frequency) Radiation Risk is at the top of the list and mentions the “risks associated with long term use of cell phones”. “Insurance companies need to monitor the manner in which emerging technologies are deployed; the risks associated with their use; their residual or unintended impacts; and the manner in which the insurance policies may be called upon to cover losses.”

The Industry Has Ignored the Warnings over Decades

Dr. George Carlo, mentioned above, was head of the WTR which began in 1993 to research the possibility of brain tumors and any other health issues related to cell phone use. Six years later, frustrated over inactivity by the industry to inform and protect the public, Dr. Carlo wrote the following letter to the CEO of AT&T.  Below are letter excerpts:

At the annual convention of the CTIA (The Wireless Association), I met with the full board of that organization to brief them on some surprising findings from our work. My understanding is that all segments of the industry were represented. At that briefing, I specifically reported: The rate of death from brain cancer among [cell phone] users was higher than the rate of brain cancer death among those who used [non-wireless] phones;

  • The risk of acoustic neuroma, a benign tumor of the auditory nerve that is well in range of the radiation coming from a phone’s antenna, was fifty percent higher in people who reported using cell phones for six years or more, moreover, that relationship between the amount of cell phone use and this tumor appeared to follow a dose-response curve;
  • The risk of rare neuro epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain was more than doubled, a statistically significant risk increase, in cell phone users as compared to people who did not use cell phones;
  • There appeared to be some correlation between brain tumors occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the right side of the head;
  • Laboratory studies looking at the ability of radiation from a phone’s antenna to cause functional genetic damage were definitively positive.

Today, I sit here extremely frustrated and concerned that appropriate steps have not been taken by the wireless industry to protect consumers. I am concerned that the wireless industry is dealing with these public health concerns through politics, creating illusions that more research over the next several years helps consumers today, and false claims that regulatory compliance means safety. Alarmingly, indications are that some segments of the industry have ignored the scientific findings and have repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers including children.

The most important measure of consumer protection is missing: complete and honest factual information to allow informed judgment by consumers about assumption of risk. I am especially concerned about what appear to be actions by a segment of the industry to [enlist] the FCC, the FDA and WHO with them in following a non-effectual course.”    

Two years before Dr. Carlo wrote his letter (January 1997), “Microwave News” published “Motorola, Microwaves and DNA Breaks: ‘War-Gaming’ the Lai-Singh Experiments”. Doctors Lai and Singh were the research team that discovered how Radio Frequency microwaves could cause DNA breaks (a precursor to Cancer). An industry media strategy was immediately devised to “war-game” the science as “it could throw previous notions of RF safety into question”.

The Industry Charade Continues Even Now

In November 2015 the “Wall Street Journal” reported on a case that is pending in the courts over cell phone radiation and brain cancer. Representatives for Motorola and the other defendants referred questions to the CTIA (the wireless industry trade group), which said in a typical industry statement: “peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk for adults or children.”

However, in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, cellphone manufacturers and wireless carriers specifically acknowledge the risk posed by health-related lawsuits. “We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits,” Verizon wrote in its 2015 annual filing. “In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.”

It has come to Thorner’s attention that brain tumors developed in each of the 5 engineers who tested cell phones.   At least 4 of the 5 have since died. “Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette” was written by Robert C. Kane, Ph.D., one of the engineers who lost his life to a brain tumor.

Dr. Kane’s book, published in 2001, “is a historical accounting of the research that has been available for forty years and has been neglected or buried by an industry that will place its absolute need to sell products above the health and well-being of its own customers. What you will find here is a litany of hundreds of research studies from the 1950s through the mid-1990s… alarming in their findings of radiation exposure, DNA damage, chromosome damage, tissue damage, radiation absorption, cataract formation, tumor formation, memory loss, motor skills degradation, and more.”

As one of the developers of cellular phones, R.C. Kane knows that “RF and microwave energy can be readily absorbed within the human body and that excessive energy absorption leads to tissue damage and death.” Plus “the frequency range most efficient at depositing Radio Frequency Radiation energy deep into muscle and brain tissue was assigned to cellular phones”(the same frequency emitted by smart meters).

Following are two quotes from Dr. Kane’s book, “Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette”:

“In 1994, work by various researchers found “that a substantial amount of the Radio Frequency Radiation is deposited into the user’s brain and converted to heat. These researchers have reported that from 50 percent to more than 90 percent of the radio frequency energy is absorbed by the user.”

“That energy absorption leads to a dangerous temperature increase. Most of the temperature rise associated with the energy absorption takes place in the first 60 to 90 seconds of exposure.” The wireless industry has suggested that users ‘concerned about the effects of radiation should make short calls to reduce the hazards of operation’. From what the research data indicates, a short call would need to be much less than one minute. In other words, based on these research findings and the industry’s warnings cell phones should not be used.”

According to Dr. Kane:  “it is known that RF energy absorption causes heating in tissue that has three primary effects: (1) tissue destruction and death; (2) inhibition of normal cell growth through depression of enzyme activity; and (3) increase in membrane permeability. Since the human brain has little, if any, sensory capability, damage or trauma occurring internally will not be felt until the effects, such as heating, are so severe that they work their way outward. So, by the time a person, exposed to radio frequency radiation, feels pain at the skin that skin is irreversibly damaged, as is the deeper tissue beneath the skin.”

The Industry Creates its Own “Belief System”

In addressing the industry agenda, Dr. Kane had this to say:

“Business as usual amounts to utilizing their substantial resources to employ the various media to broadcast the industry ‘belief system’ that renounces or buries unfavorable scientific findings. A solid body of evidence confirms that: (1) cell phones expose operators to dangerous and highly damaging levels of radio frequency energy absorption; (2) the manufacturers, service providers, government, and scientists have been aware of the hazards; and (3) the manufacturers, service providers, and government have not warned the public.”

This appropriate warning came from Dr. Carlo, spotlighted earlier as head of the WTR:

“When you put the science together, we come to the irrefutable conclusion that there is a major health crisis coming, probably already underway. Not just cancer, but also learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, autism, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and psychological and behavioral problems—all mediated by the same mechanism (RFR).”

“That is why we are so worried. Time is running out.”

Source/Fonte:

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2015/12/thorner-cell-phone-dangers-industry-denies-truth-part-2.html

THORNER: CELL PHONE DANGERS: PUBLIC DECEPTION TRUMPS PUBLIC HEALTH (PART 1)

2 december 2015 – “illinoisreview.typepad.com”, by Nancy Thorner

Phones

When trying to promote the safety of a product, industry will often compare the safety of their new product to other products already considered safe. Such is the case with ‘smart meters’, often compared to cell phones, despite much evidence that smart meters pose a risk to health, invade one’s privacy, and are potential fire hazards. Might cell phones, those ubiquitous, beloved objects of necessity in today’s society be anything other than safe

“Cell phones cause cancer” declared attorney Jimmy Gonzalez, in front of the Pembroke Pines, Florida City Council.  “It should become crystal clear that cell phones do cause cancer and that the American people are not being properly warned about cell phones.”  

What followed in Pembroke Pines was a cell phone radiation resolution adopted in November 2012 that expressed the city’s “urgent concerns arising from recent medical science reports which advise of the possible and adverse health effects delivered upon those who use cell phones, including, but not limited to, cancer, as a result of the [non-ionizing] radiation emitted by cell phones”.

Recently, the city council in Berkeley, California voted unanimously 9-0 on a Cell Phone Radiation “Right-To-Know Ordinance” that requires wireless retailers to warn customers of possible radiation exposure when purchasing cell phones.  Cell phones sold in Berkeley will now come with a warning notice explaining the dangers of high radio frequency (RF) exposure.

Berkeley is the first city in the nation to have passed a cell phone radiation ordinance since San Francisco was forced to disband a similar ordinance after a two-year court battle with the CTIA (The Wireless Association). San Francisco made the tough decision after it was apparent that an ongoing court case with the CTIA could cost the city $500,000.

Research Suppressed on Health Effects

The CTIA when arguing against the “Right-To-Know Ordinance”, made the claim that consumers would be scared if a warning notice of the dangers of high RF exposure were printed on the package or readily visible at the time of purchase. This is the same information that is printed in the product manual.

It is worth mentioning that the current FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, was once the former CEO of the CTIA and suppressed research on the health effects of cell phone radiation. In a document authored by Richard Conrad, Ph.D., Conrad states:

“Telecom lobbyists manipulate public opinion by making false proclamations through the press.  Their chief lobbyist, ‘fixer’ and generator of spin was Tom Wheeler, who is now the Chairman of the FCC – a classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse – hence the public remains without protection from non-thermal effects.  Business as usual in Washington, but in this case causing unnecessary death, disability and suffering, lack of optimum productivity, and increased health care costs.”

Sadly, Florida attorney Jimmy Gonzalez, mentioned above in his declaration that “cell phones cause cancer”, succumbed to three DIFFERENT cell phone induced cancers. ALL were caused by cell phone radiation exposure.  Each cancer developed exactly where his cell phone was held close to his body.  It was a life destroyed by a tradition of wireless profits superseding the lives of people.

The recent tragic death of “Beau” Biden, the son of Vice President Biden and former attorney general of Delaware, has once again focused attention on what seems to have been the cause of Beau’s death.  Scroll down in this article, which talks about Beau Biden’s brain cancer, where you will find a list of 23 deaths under the heading Political Brain Tumor Stats.  Little more needs to be said. May all rest in peace and may the truth be revealed. 

“Mobilize” is a movie that gives us another look at the potential dangers of cell phones. Here is an excellent rule of thumb to consider: if a study is mentioned in the media or elsewhere that does not find evidence of cell phone radiation creating health effects, check it out to ascertain if the study was industry-funded and is being used as damage control to offset independent studies that do find health effects.

Children and Cell Phone Use

What about the effects of cell phone use on children since it is now the in thing for a child to have his/her own cellphone? NBC News reported how children were being exposed to an exponentially greater amount of radio frequency than any adult will ever be in a lifetime. Dr. Devra Davis, Ph.D., writes:

“Compared with adults, research on children shows that microwave radiation is absorbed twice as much into their brain, up to triple in their brain’s hippocampus and hypothalamus and up to ten times as much into the bone marrow of the skull.  Frightening is that half of the world’s four billion cell phone users are under twenty.” 

Dr. Davis has written an eye-opening book titled “Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family.” Her book reveals the following:

Cell phone radiation is a national emergency. Emerging evidence is raising significant questions about health risks from cell phone and wireless radiation. Given the size of the potential impact, there is inadequate awareness, research, and regulation. Health experts have long been frozen out of policy-making decisions about cell phones; federal regulatory standards are set by the cell phone industry itself. Cell phone manufacturers have borrowed the playbook of the tobacco industry.

“Consumer Reports” weighs in

Even “Consumer Reports” in the September 2015 edition weighed in on the need to take precautions with cell phone use and issued “A Call for Clarity”, in which clear answers were deemed necessary as to the following substantial issues raised regarding cell phone usage:  

  • The Federal Communications Commission’s cell-phone radiation test is based on the devices’ possible effect on large adults, though research suggests that children’s thinner skulls mean they may absorb more radiation.
  • “Consumer Reports” agrees with concerns raised by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Government Accountability Office about the tests, and thinks that new tests should be developed that take into account the potential vulnerability of children.
  • We think that cell-phone manufacturers should prominently display advice on steps that cell-phone users can take to reduce exposure to cell-phone radiation.

At a time when scientists and the bio-medical community are calling for stronger EMF/RF guidelines, and fifteen countries have issued precautionary health warnings about cell phone radiation and recommendations on how to reduce risks, the wireless industry in the U.S. has opposed precautionary warnings.

Another resource conveying a similar message on institutional neglect is a book by Investigative Journalist, Norm Alster, “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by IndustriesPresumablyRegulates”, in which Alster explores how the serious health risks of wireless technology are being ignored by regulators and standard setting bodies.

How did we get to this point without a major health alert?

Ann Louise Gittleman, a “New York Times” best-selling author, wrote a book on cell phone concerns titled, “Zapped, Why Your Cell Phone Shouldn’t Be Your Alarm Clock and 1,268 Ways to Outsmart the Hazards of Electronic Pollution”. Before “Zapped” was published, Ms. Gittleman in an article titled, “Accidental Conspiracy”, explained how we got to this point without a health warning.  She wrote:

When it comes to public health, we depend upon our federal and local governments and the media to keep us safe. But what happens when these institutions miss the truth, when they fail to warn us? An unwilling Government, a silent media, an aggressive trillion dollar wireless industry: this is a perfect formula for disaster. Now we will experience the harsh reality and the cruel irony of why millions are suffering ill health at the hands of friendly fire from the very institutions we depend upon to protect us.

This question is often asked in many different situations when information vital to judging a situation is hard to come by:  What did they know and when did they know it?  Ms. Gittlemen likewise tackles that question in, “Accidental Conspiracy” by providing the following revelation:

In 1990 forty scientists at the EPA raised the alarm. They had serious concerns about the carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields and low-level Radio Frequency (RF) microwave radiation. They released a draft resolution proposing the classification of RF-EMF fields as a probable human carcinogen. The 393 page report titled, ‘An Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)’ raised tremendous controversy with the Federal government and industry groups. The EPA resolution was ultimately silenced by officials in the White House, apparently on the basis that such a classification of RF/EMF as a carcinogen would scare the American public.

Another 21 years would pass, with rampant proliferation of wireless devices, until in May 2011 the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorized “radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless cell phone use”. 

Lennart Hardell  (who was part of the World Health Organization committee) and Michael Carlberg later co-published an article (November 2013), entitled,“Using the Hill Viewpoints from 1965 for Evaluating Strengths of Evidence of the Risk for Brain Tumors Associated with Use of Mobile Phones.”   Based on Hill’s viewpoints and his discussion on how these issues should be used, the conclusion of Hardell’s and Carlberg’s review is that “glioma and acoustic neuroma are caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones.” 

Should IARC puts RF-EMF emissions in Group 1?

According to the “Preamble” of the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer): “The classification of RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones should be Group 1, i.e., ‘the agent is carcinogenic to humans’, and urgent revision of current guidelines for exposure is needed.”

With mounting evidence that RF radiation is definitely carcinogenic and the fact that exposure to our population is increasing at an exponential rate, the potential consequences are catastrophic. 

Part 2 will cover mounting evidence that is intended to wake up public perception over its oft-stated rhetoric that cell phone use is perfectly safe.  The main concern being highlighted: RF and EMF cause a breakdown in the communication between cells in the body, interrupting DNA repair and weakening tissue and organ function. 

Also documented are claims pointing to how some segments of the industry have ignored the scientific findings, having repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers including children.

Source/Fonte:

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2015/12/thorner-cell-phone-dangers-public-deception-trumps-public-health-part-1.html#more

Queste lampadine causano mal di testa, ansia e anche il cancro. Ecco cosa fare

[Qualcosa che molti probabilmente ancora ignorano…]

21 dicembre 2015- “www.dionidream.com”, di Dioni aka Riccardo Lautizi

lampadine risparmio energetico

Ci hanno detto che erano più ecologiche e che ci avrebbero fatto risparmiare sulla bolletta, ma hanno danneggiato la nostra salute. Le nuove lampadine a risparmio energetico possono essere davvero pericolose. Diversi studi hanno messo in guardia sul loro uso quotidiano e il pericolo maggiore è se si rompono tanto che la stessa Environmental Protection Agency ha creato un protocollo di emergenza da seguire in caso di rottura della lampadina proprio a causa del gas velenoso rilasciato. Vediamo cosa fare e perché sono così dannose.

Le informazioni riportate riguardano lelampadine fluorescenti compatte (CFL) e non le lampadine a LED.

E’ stata riscontrata una correlazione tra le lampadine a risparmio energetico e i seguenti disturbi:

  • Vertigini
  • Cefalea a grappolo
  • Emicrania
  • Crisi epilettiche
  • Affaticamento
  • Difficoltà nella concentrazione
  • Ansia
  • Dermatite
  • Eczema
  • Autismo
  • Epilessia
  • Cancro

Quindi queste lampadine in casa fanno male, ma ancora di più se si rompono! Secondo uno studio, condotto dai ricercatori del Fraunhofer Wilhelm Klauditz Institute per l’Autorità Federale Ambientale in Germania: se rotte, queste lampadine rilasciano 20 volte la concentrazione massima accettabile di mercurio nell’aria.

Il mercurio, come ho trattato in molti miei articoli, è il metallo pesante più pericoloso per l’uomo e tossico a qualunque concentrazione. Diversi studi scientifici mostrano come essodanneggia irrimediabilmente il cervelloe il sistema nervoso causando una miriadi di malattie gravi, ed inoltre depositandosi negli organi e ghiandole danneggia tutto il sistema ormonale e linfatico.

Perché le lampadine a risparmio energetico sono pericolose per la nostra salute?

  •  Le lampadine a risparmio energetico contengono da 3 a 5 mg di mercurio.  Il mercurio è una potente neurotossina particolarmente pericolosa per i bambini e le donne in gravidanza. Questa sostanza è particolarmente tossica per il cervello, il sistema nervoso, il fegato e i reni. Può anche danneggiare il sistema cardiovascolare, immunitario e riproduttivo. Intossicazioni di mercurio possono causare perdita di memoria, cancro e Alzheimer.
  • Le lampadine a risparmio energetico possono causare il cancroUn nuovo studio effettuato da Peter Braun presso il Germany’s Alab Laboratory ha evidenziato che questo tipo di lampadine contiene degli agenti cancerogeno-tossici in grado di causare il cancro:
    • Naftalene, un composto cristallino bianco volatile, prodotto dalla distillazione di catrame di carbone, utilizzato in naftalina e come materia prima per la produzione chimica.
    • Stirene, un idrocarburo insaturo liquido, ottenuto come sottoprodotto del petrolio.
    • Fenolo, un leggermente acido cristallino bianco tossico solido, ottenuto da catrame di carbone e utilizzato nella produzione chimica.
  • Le lampadine a risparmio energetico emettono raggi UV superiori alla norma. La Health Protection Agency (HPA) ha condotto uno studio e osservato che aumentano il rischio di cancro alla pelle soprattutto per chi lavora ore e ore vicino alle fonti di luce. È ufficialmente riconosciuta la pericolosità dei raggi UV per la nostra pelle e per gli occhi. Le radiazioni di queste attaccano direttamente il nostro sistema immunitario e impedisce la formazione adeguata di vitamina D.
  • Le lampadine a risparmio energetico generano potenti campi elettromagnetici a poca distanza dalla sorgente, fino ad un metro di distanza. Il centro indipendente di ricerche francese (CRIIREM) sconsiglia pertanto di utilizzare lampadine a basso consumo energetico a brevi distanze, come ad esempio per illuminare i comodini delle camere da letto o le scrivanie.
  • Il campo elettromagnetico generato da queste lampadine va in risonanza nei cavi elettrici generando “elettricità sporca” in tutta l’abitazione. Uno studio pubblicato nel giugno del 2008 dall’American Journal of Industrial Medicinesegnalava che questa elettricità sporca aumenta di 5 volte il rischio di contrarre il cancro. Rimuovi l’elettricità sporca con il Filtro Vivar Gs.
  • Danneggiano la ghiandola pineale. Lo studio pubblicato su Chronobiology International, a cura del professor Abraham Haim, afferma che lo spettro luminoso di queste lampadine, essendo simile alla luce del giorno, interrompe la produzione di melatonina da parte dell’organismo. Cosa che invece non facevano le vecchie lampade a incandescenza. Gli effetti sono enormi dall’insonniaall’invecchiamento precoce, dalla depressione ad un aumento esponenziale del rischio di cancro, essendo la melatonina un potente antiossidante anticancro.

COSA FARE

  • Per prima cosa evita di avere queste lampadine in casa cercando le vecchielampadine ad incandescenza oppure quelle nuove a LED (che però alla lunga stancano gli occhi e possono danneggiare la retina).  Sebbene siano state messe fuori produzione si possono ancora acquistare le vecchie lampadine online o nei negozi che hanno delle rimanenze di magazzino.
  • Se avete a casa le lampadine a risparmio energetico e si rompono devi stare molto attento nella pulizia e seguire questa procedura messa a punto dall’Environmental Protection Agency.

PULIZIA DI UNA LAMPADINA ROTTA – PROTOCOLLO EPA

  • Far evacuare la stanza se ci sono persone e animali domestici.
  • Arieggiare la stanza per 5-10 minuti aprendo la finestra o la porta a contatto con l’ambiente all’aperto.
  • Spegnere l’impianto di riscaldamento o di condizionamento dell’aria.
  • Non utilizzare l’aspirapolvere. L’aspirazione non è raccomandata perché potrebbe diffondere le particelle di mercurio presenti nella polvere.
  • Indossa i guanti, una mascherina e degli occhiali protettivi.
  • Raccogli i pezzi più grandi con le mani e i frammenti più piccoli con l’aiuto del nastro adesivo.
  • Riponi i frammenti della lampadina in contenitori ermetici, come vasi di vetro o sacchetti di plastica sigillabili.
  • Pulisci le superfici con un panno umido. Poi getta tutto ciò che avete utilizzato per la pulizia, inclusi il panno e i guanti.
  • Se la rottura avviene su un tappetino, eliminalo e rimuovi almeno la parte contaminata.
  • Chiamate il centro locale per la raccolta differenziata se hai dei dubbi sul da farsi. Porta i rifiuti presso la Piattaforma Ecologica del tuo Comune, in modo che siano smaltiti in modo corretto.
  • Come misura preventiva, sarebbe bene non utilizzare le lampadine al mercurio in aree a rischio di rottura e incidenti.
  • Lavati subito le mani quando hai terminato.

Una vecchia lampada ad incandescenza ci da sicuramente una luce più calda e gradevole delle nuove fredde luci a risparmio energetico. Potete acquistare su internet o in alcuni negozi che hanno rimanenze, ancora le lampadine ad incandescenza. Ecco un link dove potete comprarle online.

Fonte:

http://www.dionidream.com/queste-lampadine-causano-mal-di-testa-ansia-e-anche-il-cancro-ecco-cosa-fare/

EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015

EUROPAEMlogo

Last Updated: Wednesday, 23 December 2015 18:45
Published: Friday, 11 December 2015 14:33

The EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015, published on 27th November 2015 in the Journal Reviews on Environmental Health,
has been withdrawn by the authors on 11th December 2015 for editorial reasons.

It is intended to submit a revised EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016. We ask for patience.

Interested parties can subscribe to our newsletter to get informed about the new release.

Source/Fonte:

https://europaem.eu/en/library/blog-en/82-europaem-emf-guideline-2015-2