Categoria: Notizie dal mondo

Does Cell-Phone Radiation Cause Cancer?

24 settembre 2015 – “www.consumerreports.org”, by David Schipper

[L’articolo pone l’accento sulla ormai innegabile esistenza di prove concrete riguardo alla pericolosità dei telefoni mobili, che ancora gli organi preposti alla salvaguardia della salute dei cittadini continuano ad ignorare, non prendendo provvedimenti adeguati come informare la popolazione sui rischi che corre e soprattutto adottare il principio di precauzione.]

x ray phone
As the debate over cell-phone radiation heats up, consumers deserve answers to whether there’s a cancer connection

But not everyone is unconcerned. In May 2015, a group of 190 independent scientists from 39 countries, who in total have written more than 2,000 papers on the topic, called on the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and national governments to develop stricter controls on cell-phone radiation. They point to growing research—as well as the classification of cell-phone radiation as a possible carcinogen in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the WHO—suggesting that the low levels of radiation from cell phones could have potentially cancer-causing effects.

“I think the overall evidence that wireless radiation might cause adverse health effects is now strong enough that it’s almost unjustifiable for government agencies and scientists not to be alerting the public to the potential hazards,” says David O. Carpenter, M.D., director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany in New York and one of the authors of the recent letter to the U.N. and WHO.

Some countries have taken steps to protect users, at least when it comes to children. For example, France, Russia, the U.K., and Zambia have either banned ads that promote phones’ sale to or use by children, or issued cautions for use by children.

The city council of Berkeley, Calif., has also acted. In May 2015, it approved a “Right to Know” law that requires electronics retailers to notify consumers about the proper handling of cell phones. CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group, is now tring to block that law from going into effect, as it successfully did after San Francisco passed its own Right to Know law five years ago.

Of course, scientific seesawing like that doesn’t provide a lot of clarity or confidence for the 90 percent of American adults and roughly 80 percent of teens who report having a cell phone. So how concerned should you be about cell-phone radiation? Consumer Reports’ health and safety experts conducted a thorough review of the research and offer some guidance.

What Is Cell-Phone Radiation, Anyway?

Your phone sends radiofrequency, or RF, waves from its antenna to nearby cell towers, and receives RF waves to its antenna from cell towers when you make a call or text or use data. The frequency of a cell phone’s RF waves falls between those emitted by FM radios and those from microwave ovens, all of which are considered “non-ionizing” forms of radiation. That means that—unlike radiation from a nuclear explosion, a CT scan, or a standard X-ray—the radiation from your phone does not carry enough energy to directly break or alter your DNA, which is one way that cancer can occur. (FM radios and microwaves don’t raise alarms, in part because they aren’t held close to your head when in use and because microwave ovens have shielding that offers protection.)

How Could the Radiation From Cell Phones Cause Cancer?

At high power levels, RF waves can heat up water molecules (which is how microwave ovens work). Scientists used to focus their concerns on the possibility that such heating of human tissue, which is mostly water, might damage cells. In fact, the FCC’s test of cell-phone emissions—which was set in 1996 and which all phones must pass before being allowed on the market—is based on that effect.

But most experts now aren’t concerned about that possible tissue heating caused by RF waves. Instead, what’s worrying some scientists are newer lab studies suggesting that exposure to cell-phone radiation can have biological effects without raising temperature.

In 2011, researchers at the National Institutes of Health showed that low-level radiation from an activated cell phone held close to a human head could change the way certain brain cells functioned, even without raising body temperature. The study did not prove that the effect on brain cells was dangerous, only that radiation from cell phones could have a direct effect on human tissue.

RF waves from cell phones have also been shown to produce “stress” proteins in human cells, according to research from Martin Blank, Ph.D., a special lecturer in the department of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University and another signer of the recent letter to the WHO and U.N. “These proteins are used for protection,” Blank says. “The cell is saying that RF is bad for me and it has to do something about it.”

And just this year, a German study found that RF waves promoted the growth of brain tumors in mice, again at radiation levels supposedly too low to raise body temperature. The U.S. National Toxicology Program is now running an animal study of its own, exposing rats and mice to low-dose radiation. Results are expected in 2016.

What Do Cancer Studies in Human Populations Show?

The research above describes some lab and animal studies that looked at how cell-phone radiation might cause cancer or affect the body in other ways. But we also reviewed studies that investigated whether cell phones increased brain-cancer risk in humans.

We focused on five large population studies, plus follow-ups to those studies, that investigated that question. Together the studies included more than a million people worldwide, comparing cell-phone users with nonusers.

Though some findings were reassuring, others do raise concerns. Specifically, three of the studies—one from Sweden, another from France, and a third that combined data from 13 countries—suggest a connection between heavy cell-phone use and gliomas, tumors that are usually cancerous and often deadly. One of those studies also hinted at a link between cell phones and acoustic neuromas (noncancerous tumors), and two studies hinted at meningiomas, a relatively common but usually not deadly brain tumor.

Though those findings are worrisome, none of the studies can prove a connection between cell phones and brain cancer, for several reasons. For one thing, cell-phone use in certain studies was self-reported, so it may not be accurate.

In addition, the findings might be influenced by the fact that the study subjects owned cell phones that were in some cases manufactured two decades ago. The way we use cell phones and the networks they’re operated on have also changed since then. Last, cancer can develop slowly over decades, yet the studies have analyzed data over only about a five- to 20-year span.

Are Today’s Phones Safer?

Cell-phone designs have changed a lot since the studies described above were completed. For example, the antennas—where most of the radiation from cell phones is emitted—are no longer located outside of phones near the top, closest to your brain when you talk, but are inside the phone, and they can be toward the bottom. As a result, the antenna may not be held against your head when you’re on the phone. That’s important because when it comes to cell-phone radiation, every milli­meter counts: The strength of exposure drops dramatically as the distance from your body increases.

Perhaps our best protection is that more people today use phones to text instead of talk, and headphones and earbuds are growing in popularity. On the other hand, it’s also true that we use cell phones much more than we used to, so our overall exposure may be greater.

So Should I Stop Using My Cell Phone?

No, Consumer Reports does not think that’s necessary. But we do have some concerns.

“The evidence so far doesn’t prove that cell phones cause cancer, and we definitely need more and better research,” says Michael Hansen, Ph.D., a senior scientist at Consumer Reports. “But we feel that the research does raise enough questions that taking some common-sense precautions when using your cell phone can make sense.” Specifically, CR recommends these steps:

  • Try to keep the phone away from your head and body. That is particularly important when the cellular signal is weak—when your phone has only one bar, for example—because phones may increase their power then to compensate.
  • Text or video call when possible.
  • When speaking, use the speaker phone on your device or a hands-free headset.
  • Don’t stow your phone in your pants or shirt pocket. Instead, carry it in a bag or use a belt clip.

A Call for Clarity

The substantial questions raised regarding cell phones deserve some clear answers:

• 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.

This article also appeared in the November 2015 issue of Consumer Reports magazine.

Olle Johansson “Health effects of electromagnetic fields”

Pubblicato il 05 ott 2014

Olle Johansson at the Open Mind Conference 2014, Copenhagen.

“Health effects of electromagnetic fields” Olle Johansson is associate professor at the Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

He is a leading authority in the field of EMF radiation and health effects. He has also been a professor in basic and clinical neuroscience at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

He has published more than 650 original articles, reviews, book chapters and conference reports within the field of basic and applied neuroscience, dermatoscience and health effects of electromagnetic fields.

His studies have been widely recognised in the media, including newspapers, radio and TV, as well as on the Internet, both nationally and internationally. He has on-going international scientific collaborations with e.g. Japan, Brazil, South Africa, Serbia, Germany, the UK and the USA.

Olle Johansson’s presentation covers the historic background of electricity and electromagnetic fields, how suspicions arose early on concerning fields and signals producing negative health effects and how this led to today’s global public discussion about the subject. It will also touch upon the functional impairment electro hypersensitivity.

The lecture will go into depth about the scientific research results regarding the health effects of electromagnetic fields and the urgent need for independent research projects that need to be initiated to ensure our public health.

These projects should be entirely independent of all types of commercial interests as public health cannot have a price-tag. This is the responsibility of the democratically elected body of every country.

The body of evidence on EMF requires a new approach to protection of public health; the growth and development of the fetus, and of children; and argues for strong preventative actions. These conclusions are built upon prior scientific and public health reports documenting the following:

1) Low-intensity (non-thermal) bioeffects and adverse health effects are demonstrated at levels significantly below existing exposure standards.

2) ICNIRP and IEEE/FCC public safety limits are inadequate and obsolete with respect to prolonged, low-intensity exposures.

3) New, biologically-based public exposure standards are urgently needed to protect public health world-wide. 4) It is not in the public interest to wait.

http://www.openmindconference.com

Find out more on Health Effects from EMFs

THE WORK OF OLLE JOHANSSON

Articles by Olle Johansson

“MYSTERY IN THE SKIN. Screen dermatitis, the effect of computer work on human skin.” An interview with Olle Johansson, 2001
http://www.feb.se/ARTICLES/OlleJ.html

COMMENTARY: MOBILE PHONES -WILL THE GOLDEN GOOSE BECOME THE MAD COW? 2001
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/13878/20021116-0000/www.acnem.org/journal/pdf_files/20-2_commentary-mobile_phones.pdf

CUTANEOUS MAST CELLS ARE ALTERED IN NORMAL HEALTHY VOLUNTEERS SITTING IN FRONT OF ORDINARY TVS/PCS – RESULTS FROM OPEN-FIELD PROVOCATION EXPERIMENTS, 2001
http://www.foodsmatter.com/es/computers_wifi_bluetooth/articles/johansson_tv_healthy_volunteers.pdf

CANCER TRENDS DURING THE 20TH CENTURY
Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, 2002
http://iddd.de/umtsno/cancertrends.pdf

MELANOMA INCIDENCE AND FREQUENCY MODULATION (FM) BROADCASTING, 2002
http://schermatura.com/news/aehcorrection2002.pdf

DOES GSM 1800 AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH IN SWEDEN? 2004
http://www.iddd.de/umtsno/KosPaper.pdf

MALIGNANT MELANOMA OF THE SKIN – NOT A SUNSHINE STORY!
http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/fm_melanoma_sweden_4321.pdf

LONG-TERM SICKNESS AND MOBILE PHONE USE
Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, 2004
http://www.iddd.de/umtsno/lthhallberg.pdf

FM BROADCASTING EXPOSURE TIME AND MALIGNANT MELANOMA INCIDENCE, 2005
http://avaate.org/IMG/pdf/melanoma_electromagneticbiologyandmedicine_2005.pdf

HOW SHALL WE COPE WITH THE INCREASING AMOUNTS OF AIRBORNE RADIATION? 2006
http://ww.stopumts.nl/pdf/paper_johansson_airborne_radiation.pdf

ELECTROHYPERSENSITIVITY: STATE-OF-THE-ART OF A FUNCTIONAL IMPAIRMENT
Olle Johansson, 2006
http://adante.vingar.se/electrohypersensitivity1.pdf

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: WILL WE ALL BECOME ELECTROSENSITIVE?
Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson, 2006
http://www.next-up.org/pdf/EHS2006_HallbergOberfeld.pdf

DISTURBANCE OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM BY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS – A potentially underlying cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment, 2009
http://www.milieuziektes.nl/Rapporten/PATPHY_621.pdf

Fonte:

http://globalelite.tv/2014/10/07/olle-johansson-health-effects-of-electromagnetic-fields/

Does YOUR toddler play on an iPad? Taiwan makes it ILLEGAL for parents to let children under two use electronic gadgets… and under-18s must limit use to ‘reasonable’ lengths

28 gennaio 2015 – “www.dailymail.co.uk” – by Sara Malm for Mailonline

  • Children under two banned from using electronic devices in Taiwan
  • Parents who allow children to use iPads and smartphones face fines
  • Under-18s are only allowed devices for a ‘reasonable length of time’

Taiwan has banned children under the age of two from using electronic devices such as iPads, televisions and smartphones.

Parents who allow their young children to play with their gadgets face fines of up to £1,000, in line with a law passed last week.

The new law also states that parents must ensure that under-18s only use electronic products for a ‘reasonable’ length of time.

Taiwanese lawmakers passed the new legislation last Friday, completely banning parents from allowing their under-twos to use any electronic devices, China’s official news agency Xinhua reports.

Meanwhile Taiwanese under-18s are not allowed to ‘constantly use electronic products for a period of time that is not reasonable’, although the ‘reasonable length of time’ has not been defined.

The new law means that iPads, smartphones and televisions are now listed alongside cigarettes and alcohol as restricted.

The new law was originally proposed by Taiwanese MP Lu Shiow-yen, who said his intention was to protect young people by stopping them using electronic devices for more than 30 minutes at a time, The Telegraph reports.

Research published in December last year found that 7.1 per cent of the population in Asia is addicted to the internet.

In neighbouring China, online addiction among young people has become a serious problem, with an estimated 24million children considered ‘web junkies’.

As well as introducing laws requiring games companies ‘to develop techniques that would limit the gaming time of minors’, more than 250 military style boot camps have been set up across China to tackle under-18 internet addiction.

Since the release of the first iPad in 2010, an ever increasing number of parents use the Apple device to ‘babysit’ their children.

A recent poll found that half of British parents routinely allow infants to play with their smartphone or tablet, and one in seven let them spend more than four hours a day on hand-held devices.

Even Prince William recently admitted to letting Prince George play games on his iPad, saying that he believes it is ‘a good way to each him the inner workings of electronics’.

Research published in the British Medical Journal found that a child born today will have spent a full year staring at screens (tablets, computers, TVs) by the time they reach seven.

Fonte:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2929530/Does-toddler-play-iPad-Taiwan-makes-ILLEGAL-parents-let-children-two-use-electronic-gadgets-18s-limit-use-reasonable-lengths.html

George Washington University Lecture on Science and Policy – June 9, 2015 – “Ongoing Research from the Indian Medical Research Council on Cell Phones and Health”

9 giugno 2015 –  “ehtrust.org”

A Review of epidemiology and toxicology: Dr. R.S Sharma, Dr. Devra Davis and special guest Dr. George Carlo
George Washington University
The Milken Institute School of Public Health
Tuesday, June 9th, 2015

Dr. R.S. Sharma, Indian government Senior Deputy Director General & Scientist of the Indian Council of Medical Research, reviews the research showing genetic damage and health effects from wireless exposures which are informing India’s new telecommunications policy. He describes how the government is supporting efforts to reduce exposures. Slides from Dr Sharma’s presentation can be found here.

Dr. Devra Davis, PhD MPH, former Clinton Presidential appointee, founding Director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the National Academy of Sciences described current research on wireless exposures to children and what people can do to protect themselves.

Dr. George Carlo attended the lecture and came up on the podium to answer questions in the Q and A session (on the video at 1 hour 18 minutes ). Dr. Carlo is a lawyer and epidemiologist who chaired the 28 million dollar Wireless Technology Research Program that revealed cell phones could impact DNA repair and cause serious biological effects. He discusses the program and describes next steps for communities concerned about wifi in schools and cell towers on schools.

Fonte:

http://ehtrust.org/cell-phones-radiation-3/george-washington-university-lecture-on-science-and-policy-june-9-2015/

EHT Lauds Israel’s Ban on Wi-Fi in Kindergarten and Limits to Children’s Wireless Exposures in Schools

22 settembre 2015 – “www.sbwire.com”

Additionally, the Italian State of Tyrol Now Calls for Limiting Wireless in Schools

Teton Village, WY — (SBWIRE) — 09/22/2015 — As of this fall, Israel and Italy are officially recommending schools reduce children’s exposures to wireless radiation. The Israeli Ministry of Health has initiated a major public awareness effort to reduce wireless and electromagnetic radiation exposures to children. In similar action, the Italian State Parliament of South Tyrol voted to allow the application of the precautionary principle to replace existing wireless networks whenever possible with wired networks or those that emit less radiation.

The Israeli Ministry of Health (MoH) recommendations are published in the Environmental Health in Israel Report 2014 which states that

“Precautions should be strictly enforced with regard to children, who are more sensitive to developing cancer.”

The Report makes the following points:

Cell Phones: “The MoH recommends sensible use of cellular and wireless technology, including: considering alternatives like landline telephones” MoH recommendations include: use a speaker or hands-free phone accessory or (non-wireless) personal earphone in order to distance the telephone from the body, reduce the amount and duration of calls, and in areas of weak reception reduce calls because of higher radiation.

Children: MoH recommends: “refraining from installing the base of wireless phones in a bedroom, work room, or children’s room.”

Schools: Levels of non-ionizing radiation were measured in 25 schools nation-wide and “based on these findings, the MoEP recommends that students remain at a distance of at least 1.5 meters from electrical cabinets and that use of wireless communication networks in schools be reduced.”

Reduce Exposure in Cars: The MoH recommends not using cellphones in closed places like cars or elevators, buses, and trains unless there is an external antenna “due to amplified radiation in such places.” “When driving, a hands-free device should be used for calls. It is recommended to install an antenna outside the vehicle and to use a line connection between the telephone and the speaker as opposed to using Bluetooth.”

Research: Previous research findings in Israel “clearly indicated a link between cellphone use for more than 10 years and the development of tumors in the salivary glands.” Israel is currently a partner in two additional international studies: (1) MOBI-Kids, a multi-center study involving experts from 16 countries who are examining potential associations between use of communication devices and other environmental factors and risk of brain tumors, and (2) the GERoNiMO (Generalised EMF Research using Novel Methods) project, which uses an integrated approach and expertise from 13 countries to further the state of knowledge on EMF and health.

The Report concludes with a chapter by Linda S. Birnbaum, Director of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program, who states, “Israel is a world leader in research on the health effects of non-ionizing radiation. If some of the studies turn out to be harbingers of things to come, we may have major health consequences from the nearly ubiquitous presence of wireless equipment.”

The recently published ISRAEL 2015 RF Safety Report details current actions on EMFS such as:

New Public Education Website: The Israeli government launched the public education website TNUDA (http://www.tnuda.org.il) of the National Information Center for Non-Ionizing Radiation to guide the public and decision-makers on the educated use of technology.

Guidelines for the installation and operation of Wi-Fi networks in schools: Following a petition seeking an outright ban on Wi-Fi in Schools, the government is banning Wi-Fi in kindergartens and restricting hours of use in schools, installing equipment with exposures to be set as low as possible, and monitoring radiofrequency (RF) radiation levels.

Government Testing Finds that Mobile Phones Violate Manufacturers’ Reported SAR: In a study conducted by the Ministry for Environmental Protection and the Holon Institute of Technology, the SAR of 10 models of mobile phones was measured using phantoms. The measured SAR exceeded the SAR declared by the manufacturer, when the phone was held close to the head and in bad reception mode (100% of the maximum power).

ELF EMF limits are recommended at numbers far below international limits. These recommendations were set to account for research showing links to leukemia. “The Ministry of Health (MoH) jointly recommend a threshold of two milligauss on an average annual basis when planning an electrical facility or four milligauss on a daily average.” A study performed by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and by the Education Ministry has found that in more than 60% of the schools in Israel at least one classroom had magnetic fields exceeding 0.4 ?T. Action was taken to reduce exposure in these schools.

Headsets and safety information required with every new mobile phone: According to a settlement agreement accepted by the Tel Aviv-Yafo District Court in February 2014, cellular operators must inform buyers of new mobile phones about the radiation safety instructions as formulated by the manufacturer, provide a hands-free kit with every new mobile phone, and provide information on the safe use of mobile phones on its website.

National radiofrequency monitoring program: The Ministry of Environmental Protection is operating a national RF monitoring system with stations that continuously measure the entire range of RF and transmit the data to a central computer that analyzes and displays online the results of measurements.

On June 10, 2015, the Italian State Parliament of South Tyrol voted to allow the application of the precautionary principle to cell phones mandating the state government to:

1. To replace existing wireless networks whenever possible with networks that emit less radiation at schools, preschools, hospitals, nursing homes, and other public facilities.

2. Establish a working group whose mandate it is to assess these new technologies and their exposure levels. With regard to wireless communication technologies, mobile Internet access, and public health, the working group shall clarify which technologies emit less radiation and provide sustainable technology options and

3. To start an education and awareness campaign that informs about possible health risks, especially regarding the unborn, infants, children, and adolescents and that develops guidelines for a safer use of cell phones, smartphones, and Wi-Fi.

Environmental Health Trust (EHT) educates individuals, health professionals and communities about controllable environmental health risks and policy changes needed to reduce those risks. Currently EHT is raising health concerns about wireless in schools and recommending safer hardwired internet connection installations. The foundation’s website is the go-to place for clear, science-based information to prevent disease. Please visit EHtrust.org and on Facebook.

Source: Environmental Health Trust
Posted Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 11:38 AM CDT

Fonte:

http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/eht-lauds-israels-ban-on-wi-fi-in-kindergarten-and-limits-to-childrens-wireless-exposures-in-schools-627333.htm

Berkeley Cell Phone “Right to Know” Ordinance

22 settembre 2015 – “www.saferemr.com”

Media coverage about the Berkeley cell phone “right to know” ordinance 
and the CTIA’s lawsuit: http://bit.ly/berkeleymedia 

Sep 21, 2015

On September 21, Federal District Court Judge Edward Chen gave the City of Berkeley a green light to implement the City’s landmark cell phone “right to know” law after deleting one sentence from the safety notification. Cell phone vendors in the City will soon be required to provide customers with a safety warning either by giving the customer a handout or or by posting the following notice in the store:

“The City of Berkeley requires that you be provided the following notice:

To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.”

Judge Chen denied the CTIA’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have completely blocked enforcement of the ordinance until the case was fully resolved.

The Court required the City to strike the following seven words from the 82-word safety warning: “This potential risk is greater for children.”  The judge ruled that although this sentence may be factual, it can be argued that it is controversial because the FCC does not acknowledge that children’s exposure to cell phone radiation is greater than adults. For the facts supporting this assertion, see Children are more exposed to cell phone radio-frequency radiation than adults.”

Kriss Worthington, the Berkeley City Council Member who co-sponsored the ordinance,  issued the following statement today via email:

“I am pleased to report that in spite of massive attacks by the corporations they were unable to persuade the judge from taking away the consumer’s right to know in a drastic injunction. Instead the judge requested one simple sentence to be modified. The City is moving rapidly to vote on October 6th on that one sentence modification. Thank you all for your incredible efforts on behalf of the consumer’s right to know.”

Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates declared victory in an interview with SFGate. He called the warning about children, a “relatively small problem” that the City Council will remedy:
“Judge Chen’s order upholding the main part of our cell phone ordinance confirms that the cell phone industry’s claims were ill founded,” Bates said.Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, the attorney representing the City of Berkeley on this case, told Ars Technica he was pleased with the ruling:

“The rest of the ordinance survived First Amendment review, which was a very important victory and I couldn’t find a single sentence in Judge Chen’s opinion that I disagreed with, so I’m quite happy,” he said.

Lessig posted the following comment in his blog about the case:

“Judge Chen has issued a very careful and well crafted opinion upholding almost every part of the Berkeley “right to know” ordinance. (The one part he found preempted was the part that said that the risk of overexposure was greater for children.) Importantly, the Court rejected the First Amendment claims made by CTIA. Really happy to have had a chance to participate in getting this corner of the law right.”

The Court’s ruling on the injunction stipulates:

“ … the Court grants in part and denies in part CTIA’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The motion is granted to the extent the Court finds a likely successful preemption claim with respect to the sentence in the City notice regarding children’s safety. The motion is denied to the extent the Court finds that a First Amendment claim and preemption claim are not likely to succeed on the remainder of the City notice language.”“’A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’” “ … the thrust of CTIA’s complaint is twofold: (1) the Berkeley ordinance is preempted by federal law and (2) the ordinance violates the First Amendment.”
“This disclosure, for the most part, simply refers consumers to the fact that there are FCC standards on RF energy exposure – standards which assume a minimum spacing of the cell phone away from the body – and advises consumers to refer to their manuals regarding maintenance of such spacing. The disclosure mandated by the Berkeley ordinance is consistent with the FCC’s statements and testing procedures regarding spacing … the ordinance does not ban something the FCC authorizes or mandates. And CTIA has failed to point to any FCC pronouncement suggesting that the agency has any objection to warning consumers about maintaining spacing between the body and a cell phone. Moreover, the City ordinance, because it is consistent with FCC pronouncements and directives, does not threaten national uniformity.”
“There is, however, one portion of the notice required by the City ordinance that is subject to obstacle preemption – namely, the sentence ’This potential risk is greater for children.’ Notably, this sentence does not say that the potential risk may be greater for children; rather, the sentence states that the potential risk is greater. But whether the potential risk is, in fact, greater for children is a matter of scientific debate … the FCC has never made any pronouncement that there is a greater potential risk for children, and, certainly, the FCC has not imposed different RF energy exposure limits that are applicable to children specifically … Thus, the content of the sentence – that the potential risk is indeed greater for children compared to adults – threatens to upset the balance struck by the FCC between encouraging commercial development of all phones and public safety, because the Berkeley warning as worded could materially deter sales on an assumption about safety risks which the FCC has refused to adopt or endorse.”
“ … CTIA completely ignores the fact that the speech rights at issue here are its members’ commercial speech rights …. CTIA’s members are being compelled to communicate a message, but the message being communicated is clearly the City’s message, and not that of the cell phone retailers… (providing that the notice shall state ‘The City of Berkeley requires that you be provided the following notice” and that “the notice shall include the City’s logo’). In other words, while CTIA’s members are being compelled to provide a mandated disclosure of Berkeley’s speech, no one could reasonably mistake that speech as emanating from a cell phone retailer itself. Where a law requires a commercial entity engaged in commercial speech merely to permit a disclosure by the government, rather than compelling speech out of the mouth of the speaker, the First Amendment interests are less obvious. Notably, at the hearing, CTIA conceded that there would be no First Amendment violation if the City handed out flyers or had a poster board immediately outside a cell phone retailer’s store.”
“While CTIA has argued that being forced to engage in counter-speech (i.e., speech in response to the City notice) is, in and of itself, a First Amendment burden … that is not necessarily true where commercial speech is at issue.”

A case management conference has been scheduled for October 1 in the Federal District Court.

Federal District Court ruling on CTIA request for a preliminary injunction (9/21/2015): http://bit.ly/CTIABerkeleyruling09212015

Fonte:

http://www.saferemr.com/2014/11/berkeley-cell-phone-right-to-know.html

Cell Towers on School Grounds Are Not Safe: George Washington University Scientific Lecture Excerpt

Pubblicato il 19 set 2015

Dr. George Carlo and Dr. Sharma do not recommend cell towers on schools. Watch them express their opinion in the excerpt from the Q and A after a presentation at George Washington university on June 9, 2015.
Watch the full lecture at http://ehtrust.org/cell-phones-radiation-3/george-washington-university-lecture-on-science-and-policy-june-9-2015/

Dr. R.S. Sharma, Indian government Senior Deputy Director General & Scientist of the Indian Council of Medical Research, states his official recommendation is against cell towers near homes and schools. He reviews the research showing genetic damage and health effects from wireless exposures which are informing India’s new telecommunications policy in his lecture. He describes how the government is supporting efforts to reduce exposures.

Dr. Devra Davis, PhD MPH, former Clinton Presidential appointee, founding Director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the National Academy of Sciences described current research on wireless exposures to children and what people can do to protect themselves.

Calls to ban wifi in schools based on cancer risk

17 settembre 2015 – “Mobilfunk-Newsletter”

Hello Dr Kabat,

Read your McGill reporter interview. I’m surprised by your conclusions, as insufficient proof of harm is not proof of safety, as you very well know. Remember tobacco, lead, glyphosate, etc.?
 
as well as the ICEMS’ Monograph, “Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter”, edited by Livio Giuliani and Morando Soffritti for the “European Journal of Oncology” – Library Vol. 5 of the National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer and Environmental Diseases “Bernardo Ramazzini”, Bologna, Italy, 2010, Part I and Part II. http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm
Especially this chapter by Dr of radiobiology Igor Belyeav, head of the Russiand and Slovak laboratories of radiobiology:
Dependence of non-thermal biological effects of microwaves on physical and biological variables: implications for reproducibility and safety standards
Abstract:
Diverse biological responses, including adverse health effects, to non-thermal (NT) microwaves (MW) have been described by many research groups all over the world. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the complex dependence of these effects on various physical and biological parameters, which must be controlled in replication studies. Besides well-known dependencies on carrier frequency and modulation, emerging data suggest dependencies of NT MW effects on polarization, intermittence and coherence time of exposure, static magnetic field, electromagnetic stray fields, genotype, gender, physiological and individual traits, cell density during exposure. Data also indicate that duration of exposure may be as important as power density (PD) and specific absorption rate (SAR). Further evaluation of these dependencies are needed for understanding the mechanisms by which NT MW affect biological systems, planning in vivo and epidemiological studies, developing medical treatments, setting safety standards, and minimizing the adverse effects of MW from mobile communication.
 
On how some children react to Wi-Fi, see this conference by Dr Karl Maret MD: https://vimeo.com/132039697
 
and here is a rough Google translation of a recent feature I wrote in French.
 
Best regards
 
André Fauteux, Editor/Publisher
La Maison du 21e siècle Magazine 
450 228-1555
 
 
Electrohypersensitivity in school: a mother goes to court
André Fauteux | September 10, 2015  
 
Photo: A new French law prohibits Wi-Fi “in the areas dedicated to home, to rest and activities of children under three years” and requires that it be turned off in primary schools when not in use for digital activities teaching.
 
A Montreal lawyer has filed a discrimination complaint against the Public Health Department (DSP) of Montreal and the Quebec government who refuse to give her and her three children reasonable accommodations due to their electrohypersensitivity.
 
According to their doctor, mother and children have developed a severe intolerance to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by antennas and wireless devices such as wireless modems and routers. The mother filed her complaint with the Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission 28 August and is also about to file proceedings in Quebec Superior Court.
 
“The DSP violates Canadian law on human rights,” says the lawyer who asked to remain anonymous to protect her children’s identity. She refers in particular to the report Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians, filed on June 17 by the Standing Committee on Health of the House of Commons, which recommended notably that: “The Government of Canada continue to take reasonable accommodation in cases of environmental sensitivities, such as electromagnetic hypersensitivity [EHS], as required under the Canadian Charter of Human Rights.”
 
Tachycardia, tinnitus, headaches …
 
Searching for healthy schools for her children since May, the lawyer said she had “only good words” for Dominique Bertrand, deputy director of the Marguerite-Bourgeoys School Board (CSMB) and its coordinator of Health and Safety, Marc Bisson, who acted to reduce two of her three children’s RF exposure in west-end Montreal schools. “Mr. Bisson agreed to disconnect the Wi-Fi in their classroom and nearby routers. And he wrote a directive prohibiting activating a cell phone in the presence of my nine-year-old daughter. » The lawyer said the girl often has nosebleeds when exposed to Wi-Fi, even unknowingly, evidence that her reaction is not psychosomatic.
 
Finding a school without RF radiation is harder in high school, when most students have a cellphone. And in some schools, even after turning off the Wi-Fi, radiation levels exceed the recommendations of the Austrian Medical Association for exposure to RF, the lawyer said. “At the Collège Jean-de-Brébeuf, the main entrance is overexposed by emissions from cellular antennas installed on the other side of the street, on the roof and walls of Sainte-Justine Hospital! “
 
Her other daughter, who is 12, suffers from stomach aches and headaches arising after sustained exposure to RF microwaves. The mother said she also had to remove her 14-year-old son from the College of Montreal where he suffered from heart palpitations, tinnitus, as well as concentration and memory problems. (The symptoms were documented since the Second World War in certain radio operators suffering from what was then called microwave sickness.) On August 27, the deputy director of the CSMB finally enrolled the teenager in a class without Wi-Fi in a Mount Royal high school.
 
“The inaction of the Ministry of Health and the Public Health Department is outraging. When there is a slightest doubt of a serious risk to public health, the precautionary principle should prevail, » said the mother who sent the DPS formal notice on July 22. The only response she received was by email, by DSP Director Dr. Richard Massé, on August 27. He referred to reports by Health Canada, the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international bodies quoted in an advisory entitled Wi-Fi in schools written in 2014 by DSP toxicologist Monique Beausoleil for the Montreal School Board. Her review concluded that “until now, research has not been able to provide data that demonstrate a causal relationship between exposure to RF and symptoms reported by people who say they have “electromagnetic hypersensitivity » (EHS). Given, on the one hand, the levels of exposure to RF attributable to the Wi-Fi technology, and secondly, the results of rigorous scientific studies on the effects of RF on health, the use of Wi-Fi in primary schools does not constitute a risk to the health of teachers nor the students.”
 
Although WHO recognizes the existence of EHS since 2005, the agency says it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that its symptoms are triggered by electromagnetic fields (EMFs). But this opinion is disputed by a growing number of experts and the Austrian Medical Association, which published in 2011 a Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of health problems and diseases associated with EMFs. Moreover, as early as 2000, the Council of Ministers of European Nordic countries (including Sweden) recognized EHS as a disability entitling accommodations, adding that its symptoms (fatigue, memory problems and concentration, etc.) disappear in “non-electrical environments”.
 
At the CSMB, spokesman Jean-Michel Nahas said it requires Wi-Fi devices comply with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 (CS6) whose guidelines for human RF exposure aim to avoid tissue heating from a six-minute exposure. But in 1993, three US federal agencies (EPA, FDA and NISOSH) reported that the US FCC guideline akin to CS6 had “major flaws” because it ignores the non-thermal effects of low RF exposures long term, recognized in 1986 by the US National Council for Radiation Protection
and Measurements in its report Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Moreover, in 2014, the American Academy of Pediatrics, representing more than 60,000 pediatricians, asked the US government to adopt RF exposure limits taking into account the greater vulnerability of children.
 
Why did the CSMB accommodated the lawyer’s children? “Exceptional measures may be considered in specific cases where a student or a teacher complains of symptoms supported by the diagnosis of a doctor. Nevertheless, we ensure that services, including wireless internet, are not diminished by these compromises,” said Nahas.
 
Public Health dissent
 
The lawyer has such a letter from her physician, Dr. Louis Jacques, Professor of Medicine at the University of Montreal, a clinician at the Notre-Dame Hospital’s Occupational and Environmental Health Clinic and… a medical adviser at the DSP. In his letter, he recommends replacing wireless internet connections with cable, as Israel does in classrooms of younger students and as recommended in Switzerland, Germany and other countries. Since late January 2015, Wi-Fi is even banned in France in child care and early childhood centers and it is restricted in primary schools.
“Note that the withdrawal of Wi-Fi in the whole school and all schools is a preventive measure among others against EMFs that has been recommended by many scientists around the world,” wrote Dr. Jacques in his June 11 letter to the primary school of the the lawyer’s daughter. He added: The potential effects of EMFs on health are many: in addition to hypersensitivity syndrome which affects 3 to 5% of people (prevalence appears to be growing), there may be effects on cancer, on the heart and on the brain.” In concluding that “the literature is enormous”, he referred in particular to the www.emfscientist.org website which presents a call for precaution issued in May 2015 by 190 experts who authored more than 2,000 EMF/health studies. Among the experts who recommend the removal of Wi-Fi schools include Dr. Anthony Miller, emeritus professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto and head of epidemiological studies at the National Cancer Institute from 1971 to 1986. “Children should reduce their exposure to wireless emissions and pregnant women should avoid putting a laptop or tablet on their belly,” he told us in an interview last year.
 
Scientific debate
 
The absence of scientific consensus surrounding EHS did not prevent the French disability tribunal in Toulouse, in early July, from recognizing medical evidence supporting an EHS complaint. It concluded Marine Richard suffers from a syndrome whose “clinical description is irrefutable” reported Le Figaro on August 25 Le Figaro. This first by a French court allowed Ms Richard, who suffers from functional impairment (85% level) preventing her from working, attributed to EMFs by her doctor. She was granted “an allowance of 800 euros per month for three years and possibly renewable”.
 
In its opinion on EHS published in December 2005, WHO declared that the majority of studies on the topic “indicates that individuals complaining of EHS are unable to detect more precisely exposure to EMFs that ordinary individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.”  However, according to the British website Powerwatch.org.uk, there are many studies showing the opposite and they were carried by non-industry nor state-funded experts. I met some of them last May in Brussels, at the 5th Paris Appeal Conference, which focused this year on environmental sensitivities. One of these experts, Igor Belyaev, PhD in genetics and radiation biology and head of the Radiobiology Laboratory at both the Russian and Slovak Academies of Sciences, explained to me that several studies appear designed to make believe that EHS is psychosomatic. They do not take into account for example the fact that the symptoms often appear hours after EMF exposure. Moreover, in general, subjects are exposed in laboratory to pure RFs which in no way reflect the characteristics (multiple frequencies, bandwidths, modulation, polarization, intensity, variable exposure times, interference, etc.) of RF microwaves that we are exposed to daily. (Read his article on the physical and biological variables influencing the non-thermal effects of RF, which it recommends to consider to publish studies reproducible and realistic safety standards.)
 
For the last four years, the organizer of the Brussels conference, Parisian oncologist Dominique Belpomme, has treated more than 1200 patients (read his Powerpoint presentation) he diagnosed with EHS, which he renamed EMF Intolerance Syndrome (SICEM). He reported they all show clinical signs of brain damage such as poor cerebral vascularisation, high levels of histamine and heat shock proteins or a decrease in vitamin D as well as melatonin, the powerful anticancer hormone responsible for our biological clock. “Their symptoms are not explained by a known disease, they appear and are reproducible under the effect of electromagnetic fields and they regress or disappear in the event of avoidance of these waves », he added.
 
Among the conferences most appreciated speakers was an octogenarian from Dallas, Texas, Dr. William J. Rea. A thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon, he has treated more than 30,000 people with environmental hypersensitivities since the early 1970s. In 1991, he coauthored a study in the Journal of Bioelectricity explaining how he induced neurological and cardiac symptoms in EHS patients. First he had them rest a few days in a pollution-free environment to calm their nervous and other systems. His team then exposed patients to RFs and sham placebos in double-blind challenges (neither the researchers nor the subjects were aware which exposures were real). In an interview in Brussels, he told me that 80% of his EHS patients had previously been poisoned by mold or chemicals which notably harmed their immune and neurological systems.
 
It so happens that our Montreal lawyer and mother also suffers from severe vitamin D deficiency, and she told me that her symptoms and her children’s appeared two years after leaving a water-damaged house where they suffered repeated infections caused by significant mold exposure. The triggers, she said, was the wireless Bell Fibe modem next to her computer and a new smart meter, both RF transmitters whose power peaks are never mentioned by the public health authorities, which only talk of average levels of exposure. 
 
“Wi-Fi exposes many children to annual RF doses that are much larger than those received from a cell phone that can give you a higher dose but to which we are much less exposed”, explained in Brussels toxicologist Magda Havas, an expert on EMFs health effects at Trent University, in Ontario. ”Since 2010, there have been several cardiac arrests among schoolchildren in Collingwood.”
 
For his part, California physician Dr Karl Maret measured cumulative RF exposure levels higher in a hypersensitive child at school than he measured in an internet cafe. “EHS children and pregnant women are at most risk, he said in a lecture at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on June 2015. They are like the canaries we used to send in mines and who tell us there is a problem and it is high time we deal with it.”
 
At the DSP, spokeswoman Marie Pinard denied that Dr. Louis Jacques was reprimanded for contradicting the view of his colleague Monique Beausoleil. ‘’Clinical doctors are totally independent in determining their diagnoses and treatment advice they give their patients”, she said. Dr. Fernand Turcotte, who co-founded the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine at Laval University, said he would be surprised if Dr. Jacques was the subject of any blame. “Louis is a guy who knows his job, I have no doubt about his credibility and independence.”

Fonte:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mobilfunk_newsletter/ZsxH1qqh-eM

The Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Man

13 settembre 2015 – “Towards Better Health”

[Cenni storici…]

by Pierre Dubochet, Forum Sécurité, no.1, May 2015

(Translation by Meris Michaels – Sept. 13, 2015)


Forum_Securite_mai_2015Since the use of microwave emitters in the 1930’s, we have observed biological effects. In some cases, harmless, in others, dangerous.

At the end of the 1960’s, microwave experts from Eastern Europe produced a document showing that exposure of workers and members of the military to microwaves at non-thermal levels for many years results in, among others: fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, change in heart rate, hypo- and hypertension, somnolence, insomnia, troubles concentrating, skin allergies, increase in numbers of lymphocytes, perturbation of the electroencephalogram, and damage to sense organs.

Exactly the afflictions a growing percentage of people are now complaining about! NASA translated this text under the title “Biological Effect of Microwaves in Occupational Hygiene” in 1970. With “Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation”, WHO took the same direction in 1973, emphasizing the cumulative nature of received doses. Science has proven that chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) of microwaves below thermal thresholds leads to functional alterations, at times disabling, at times dangerous.

From the moon to the mobile phone

In 1969, Motorola, the American inventor of the transceiver and walkie-talkie, transmitted the voice of Neil Armstrong, walking on the moon. Its next objective was a GSM mobile phone network. More than 100 million dollars were invested before the commercialization of its radiotelephones in 1983. In the medium term, the mobile phone could well be a colossal financial manna provided that the countless reports signaling risks of exposure to EMF were stifled.

Thus, in 1974, experts like Tanner, Bigu del Blanco and Sierra observed that several minutes of exposure to EMF at 27 MHz emitted by a radio transmitter of 5 watts (a current mobile phone with G of 2 watts) is sufficient to cause a significant loss of myelin(1). This substance surrounds the nerve fiber and conducts nerve impulses. Research has shown that pulsed microwaves – this extremely low frequency (ELF) pulse which optimizes the signal and reduces the technology costs – generate more metabolic disturbances compared to a continuous signal at the same average power density.

We remember the affair at the American Embassy in Moscow disclosed by the press in 1976. The premises were irradiated by microwaves at around 6 V/m(2). Ambassador Stoessel suffered from ocular hemorrhages and a blood disorder. Three men died of cancer, five women underwent a mastectomy linked to cancer. Neither a hypothetical risk nor an abstract risk, exposure to microwave EMF is harmful at non-thermal levels. How does one develop wireless technologies in this context?

First, by taking the lead in legalizing what one calls indicative limit values in toxicology. Second, by replacing the precautionary principle, susceptible to restraining litigation, with the principle of technology watch, that is, observing the health impact over several decades while awaiting the development of scientific methods showing absolute proof of harm. This is the famous “we don’t know”. Two dominant organizations support these strategies: the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the EMF department at WHO.

Michael Repacholi chaired the study groups at WHO from 1978. He also belonged to a group which established ICNIRP in 1992. Repacholi presided over this commission which comprises twelve other member scientists, some of whom occupy top positions in the industry. Repacholi founded and headed the research department on the effects of EMF at WHO during the period when safety norms were established, between 1996 and 2006. Can we really believe the president of these institutions was actually defending public health?

Can we really imagine this man supporting citizens against aggressive industrialists?  It was the opposite, according to David Leloup of Mediattitudes(3). Repacholi was acting on behalf of the industry. In 1990, this man supported an Australian electricity company against landowners in New South Wales who were opposed to the installation of a high voltage power line (HT) on their property. In 1995, he assisted Bell South in installing a relay antenna near a nursery in Christchurch.

Later, by downplaying studies showing the increase in the risk of child leukemia near power lines, Repacholi supported the Connecticut Light and Power Co. On 3 August 2000, Michael Repacholi, the man who influenced all national radiation protection associations worldwide, admitted before the Court of the Australian Senate that limiting exposure to wireless radiation is not based on science. It was negotiated between trade unions (industrial) and the government of that period.

Anticipating the risk of legal action and buying time

ICNIRP found an approach to safeguard the industry which seemed scientific. A model filled with a homogenous fluid gel was subjected to EMF. At 61 V/m during six minutes, the heating of the gel was inferior to the regulatory thermal capacity of the human body. ICNIRP’s communication was clever: although not specifying any safety or health value, it was perceived as such. It was the tour de force wording of communication specialists destined to anticipate the risk of legal actions relating to products and services.

The numerous bias in the guide published by ICNIRP make this document irrelevant for evaluating realistic exposure limits, but who cares. It used all its influence, including its intimate connections with WHO. Objective: to have high thresholds of exposure accepted in a maximum number of countries. The EMF department at WHO retracted the former “unsafe” proclamations and reverted to the old theory of radiophobia.

In 1958, while the government was preparing the legal basis for nuclear electricity, WHO snubbed its foes in its report 151: The appearance of “a source of energy of such shattering possibilities as atomic power will cause strong psychological reactions, and… some of these will probably have to be considered as more or less pathological.” It repeated this credo with symptoms due to non-thermal exposure to EMF: There also exist certain elements indicating that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric disorders, as well as reactions to stress resulting from fear of eventual health effects.

Aware of the safety issues, European insurance companies excluded risks linked to EMF in their coverage. For our federal authorities, protection of health due to EMF is a challenge. In drafting the Ordinance on Protection Against Non-Ionizing Radiation (ORNI), Switzerland, neither exemplary nor rigorous, chose to base itself on the recommendations of ICNIRP. It legalized a density which could go up to 61 V/m for fixed installations emitting between 2 and 300 GHz. Mobile devices (smartphones, Wi-Fi etc.) are excluded from ORNI because “we must be sure not to create unacceptable obstructions to business.”

Science shows that the penetration of EMF is greater in children than in adults. Olsen(4) concluded that children exposed in utero or during the first seven years of their life to low doses of EMF have an 80% risk of behavioral disorders at age seven. Carlo(5) indicated a link between wireless technology and child autism, which is increasing rapidly.

The convenience of Wi-Fi is attractive, but it causes a significant addition of EMF, including to children and young people, fond of wireless. This pollution carries increased risk of neurological and cognitive disorders. We have seen pulsed microwave radiation impairing memory and attention. The risk of headaches and dizziness increases with irradiation. In addition, hyperactivity and chronic insomnia may occur. How to be successful in schooling and studies if the environment affects attention and memory? Can we take the risk of threatening the future of our children? Can we expose them to radiation with cumulative effects in order to avoid a few meters of wire?

Neuchâtel limits use of Wi-Fi in classrooms

The Neuchâtel authorities, as in other countries, have refused the risk of Wi-Fi. Pioneers in Switzerland, they have adopted an ordinance in 2010 whose article 7 stipulates that only wired networks (metallic cables or fiber optics) are authorized in classrooms in preschools, and primary schools. Article 8 authorizes wireless equipment under certain conditions in shared spaces. At the Association Romande Alerte (ARA), we wanted to know if the Ordinance was being adhered to. We have equally focused on nurseries where exposure of very young children to EMF is all the more ill-advised.

Another technician and I visited 18 preschool and primary school establishments (around 15% of the establishments in the canton), announcing ourselves to the officials on the day of evaluation. The doors to some schools and nurseries remained closed due to lack of an official request in writing. In spite of the Ordinance, Wi-Fi routers were irradiating classrooms in preschools and primary schools. Schools and nurseries taken together, we measured Wi-Fi in nearly three out of four locations. Sometimes, the Wi-Fi served to connect a computer and a printer only a few meters apart. In the nursery, four computers for very young children were connected to routers located a few dozen centimeters from their heads.  In addition, sometimes wireless DECT phones and cell phones were further increasing EMF exposure.

In its patent WO2004075583, Swisscom outlined various risks from electrosmog. At the international conference in Salzburg in 2002, eminent independent experts in building biology estimated that an exposure inferior to 0.06 V/m was acceptable long-term. In this regard, only one primary school, one preschool and one nursery school visited could be considered neutral in terms of EMF.

The personnel we met were of good faith but often ignorant about protective measures such as those proposed by the Federal Office for Public Health. Several kinds of confusion were observed. Certain users believed that it suffices to connect a cable to a device (for example, to connect the tablet to the mains) in order to avoid radiation. Others confound Wi-Fi with access to the Internet. There are still many challenges before awareness is raised among all concerned parties. Our investigations have however been fruitful: installations were taken away, and we have established useful contacts with the canton of Neuchâtel service of compulsory education.

Establishing a program of electromagnetic protection in schools is being considered. We hope that the scholastic officials of other cantons as well as business leaders will join us in this campaign.

(1) Science et vie, février 1974.
(2) OMS “La protection contre les rayonnements non ionisants”, 1985, p. 143.
(3) http://www.mediattitudes.info, Téléphonie mobile: trafic d’influence à l’OMS?, 23 janvier 2007.
(4) J. Olsen, L. Kheifets, C. Obel, H.A. “The prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children”, Epidemiology. 2008 Jul ; 19(4);523-9.
(5) 5 T.J. Mariea, G.L. Carlo. “Wireless radiation in the etiology and treatment of autism (…)”, Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine, Vol.26, No.2, August 2007.

PIERRE DUBOCHET, engineer, is a pioneer at Neuchâtel radio where he became technical director of the station. In 1995, he set up a business specialized in multimedia whose products are distributed in more than 160 countries. He undertakes radiation measurements in private homes and conducts EMF audits in businesses in order to safeguard the health of employees and thus, productivity.

To view his site: http://www.pierredubochet.ch

Forum Sécurité

The only magazine dedicated to the theme of safety in French-speaking Switzerland

The Swiss magazine on safety – Forum Sécurité – is the only professional magazine in French-speaking Switzerland dedicated entirely to the theme of safety. It is the counterpart of the Swiss German magazine SicherheitsForum. The themes developed in Forum Sécurité are on organizational, physical, and technical safety, safety at work as well as information security. Subjects discussed include management of safety and risk, technical safety, business continuity, work safety, health protection and its promotion, information security, data protection and that linked to IT security as well as building safety in all its forms, from fire protection to building security in general.

Original article in French:
http://www.pierredubochet.ch/forum-securite-mai-2015.html

 

Allergia alle onde elettromagnetiche, due genitori denunciano una scuola

14 settembre 2015 – Corriere della Sera / Pediatria, di Simona Marchetti

[Interessante articolo del Corriere della Sera / Pediatria di ieri, 14 settembre 2015.

Ci permettiamo però di fare tre considerazioni in merito alle seguenti affermazioni contenute nel pur meritevole articolo:

“In realtà però l’EHS resta un enigma, perché non esistono prove certe che ne dimostrino l’esistenza. Non a caso, secondo gli esperti coloro che dicono di soffrirne sarebbero invece vittima dell’effetto «nocebo» (ovvero, il malessere si manifesta non appena si viene a conoscenza della presenza di un segnale wi-fi): una teoria che pare trovare l’avallo della stessa Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità che, pur riportando questo disturbo nell’elenco delle malattie, non conferma però che la causa scatenante siano le onde elettromagnetiche.”

1) Non è vero che non esistono prove certe della esistenza della Elettrosensibilità: migliaia (!!) di articoli scientifici riportano l’esistenza di un nesso di causalità tra l’esposizione alle radiazioni elettromagnetiche e l’insorgenza di effetti biologico/sanitari che conducono anche alla Elettrosensibilità.

2) Già nel lontano 1950 i ricercatori russi identificarono quella che definirono “malattia da microonde” in soldati e operai che avevano ricevuto una esposizione professionale giornaliera a radiofrequenze (RF) e apparecchiature a microonde. E negli anni successivi, sempre più prove scientifiche hanno confermato la pericolosità di questo tipo di esposizione.

Adesso, certuni scienziati (e non tutti, come fa intendere l’articolo!), sostengono che esista solo un problema di effetto “nocebo”.
Se si andasse ad indagare la fonte del loro finanziamento, probabilmente si scoprirebbero cose interessanti.

Dunque questo problema deve essere affrontato quanto prima, perché un tempo soldati e operai in certi tipi di settori erano gli unici soggetti ad essere esposti alle microonde, oggigiorno, con la diffusione del Wireless, siamo diventati tutti come i radaristi e ci ammaleremo seriamente, eccome se ci ammaleremo seriamente!

3) La Organizzazione mondiale della Sanità potrà anche non confermare che la causa della Elettrosensibilità siano radiofrequenze/microonde, però il 31 maggio 2011 ha rilasciato un comunicato nel quale dice chiaramente che radiofrequenze/microonde sono dei possibili cancerogeni per l’uomo, inseriti in classe 2 come, tanto per fare un esempio, il piombo.
Difatti la benzina contenente piombo è stata tolta dalla circolazione per ragioni sanitarie. La tecnologia Wireless, invece, sta venendo diffusa come non mai.
Fatevi una domanda e datevi una risposta.]

onde

Il caso di uno studente che soffre di mal di testa, pruriti, palpitazioni, sintomi della EHS. In Francia un tribunale ha riconosciuto a una donna la disabilità per lo stesso disturbo

Ogni volta che G (nome di fantasia) tornava a casa dal prestigioso istituto elementare che frequentava, lamentava mal di testa e pruriti, che però svanivano col passare delle ore e addirittura non comparivano mai nei fine settimana o durante le vacanze scolastiche. Ma quando gli stessi medici non seppero dare una spiegazione plausibile a quegli strani sintomi, comparsi per la prima volta nella primavera del 2013 e aggravatisi poi lo scorso anno con emorragie dal naso, vertigini, palpitazioni e nausea, i suoi genitori decisero di avviare una ricerca per conto loro. E alla fine – come racconta il sito Dailybeast.com – la causa di tutti i mali di G sarebbe stata identificata nel wi-fi della Fay School di Southborough, Massachusetts, dove il figlio studiava dal 2009 e che, guarda caso, era stato implementato proprio nella primavera del 2013, ovvero quando il ragazzo aveva iniziato a stare male. Da qui la conclusione che il figlio soffrisse di ipersensibilità elettromagnetica (la cosiddetta EHS) e la conseguente richiesta all’istituto di passare alla rete Ethernet o di ridurre le emissioni del sistema wireless installato per alleviare i sintomi di quella che – a loro dire – era da considerare una vera e propria disabilità.

La denuncia in tribunale

Ma quando i vertici della scuola si sono rifiutati di cooperare, i genitori di G hanno portato la Fay in tribunale, asserendo che «avesse volutamente ignorato gli studi scientifici dietro alla EHS». Studi come quello condotto nel 2013 da due scienziati dell’Indiana, dove gli autori convengono che «i campi elettromagnetici possono modificare le funzioni neurologiche e il metabolismo cellulare» che sono infatti finiti nelle 45 pagine della denuncia, molte delle quali ruotano attorno alla definizione stessa di «ipersensibilità elettromagnetica» e alla conferma che non si tratti «di una condizione ipotetica» bensì di una disabilità «che possa compromettere gravemente le funzioni neurologiche e respiratorie dell’individuo, limitandone sostanzialmente l’attività», come puntualizzato anche nell’Indoor Enviromental Quality dello United States Access Board.

L’ipersensibilità elettromagnetica esiste?

In realtà però l’EHS resta un enigma, perché non esistono prove certe che ne dimostrino l’esistenza. Non a caso, secondo gli esperti coloro che dicono di soffrirne sarebbero invece vittima dell’effetto «nocebo» (ovvero, il malessere si manifesta non appena si viene a conoscenza della presenza di un segnale wi-fi): una teoria che pare trovare l’avallo della stessa Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità che, pur riportando questo disturbo nell’elenco delle malattie, non conferma però che la causa scatenante siano le onde elettromagnetiche.

Il precedente in Francia

Tornando al caso del piccolo G, c’è però un precedente che potrebbe dar ragione ai suoi genitori nella denuncia contro la scuola: il mese scorso, infatti, un tribunale di Tolosa, in Francia, ha riconosciuto come handicap l’ipersensibilità alle onde elettromagnetiche, stabilendo un’indennità di 800 euro al mese per tre anni (eventualmente rinnovabile) alla 39enne Marine Richard, costretta a trasferirsi in uno sperduto paesino dei Pirenei per evitare qualsiasi contatto con reti cellulari o wi-fi e altre fonti elettromagnetiche che possano provocarle gravi reazioni allergiche.

Articolo originale al seguente link:

http://www.corriere.it/salute/pediatria/15_settembre_14/allergia-onde-elettromagnetiche-due-genitori-denunciano-scuola-97b43668-5af1-11e5-8ba2-883e928384e2.shtml