Tag: elettrosensibilità

“Wired Health Now 2016” Battles “Wi-Fi Now 2016”

13 April 2016 – “www.odwyerpr.com”, by 

Wi-Fi Now 2016Advocates for healthy practices for cellphones, computers and other devices have organized “Wired Health Now 2016” April 19-21 to offset “Wi-Fi Now 2016” in Tysons Corner, Va., on the same dates.

“Wired Health” will be a cyber conference with dozens of participants not only from the U.S. but Canada, U.K., France, Germany and other countries.

An agenda is being drawn up to compete with the agenda of “Wi-Fi Now 2016” which has 60+ speakers.

BULLETIN: After accepting a press reservation for O’Dwyer’s, Heidi Jepsen, chief administrator of Wi-Fi Now 2016, today said no O’Dwyer reporter will be allowed to cover the conference, cancelling the reservation.

Attempts to place health advocate speakers on the Wi-Fi conference have been rebuffed by the organizers.

Claus Hetting
Claus Hetting

Claus Hetting, CEO and chairman of Wi-Fi Now and CEO of Hetting Consulting, Arhus, Denmark, told this website that the conference “is not a forum for discussing health issues of any kind.”

Health Concerns Cited by EHS Victim

An immediate response went to Hetting from Norm Ryder of Canada, who has electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Ryder wrote:

“I understand you think health concerns about Wi-Fi are groundless and not founded in science.  There are literally thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject and the overwhelming weight of evidence supports the contention that low levels of radiation are harmful.

“The level of radiation is many orders of magnitude higher than historic natural levels and the radiation is different today than the natural radiation. Most man made radiation today is digital, pulsed and modulated, historically it has been none of these.

”In addition the radiation is polarized today, naturally it is not, and we are also frequently within the near and intermediate field zones of radiation where there can be spectacular peaks of radiation. Man made radiation is an entirely different beast from the minuscule  natural radiation mankind has evolved with.

“As a person with EHS, I am well aware of the various illnesses and poor health experiences I and many others feel when subjected to electromagnetic radiation. The two videos below cover some of the issues of electromagnetic radiation to a greater depth

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: What it is like to live with it.

The highly dangerous and unpredictable zones around Cell Towers, Cell Phones other radiating devices

Cordially, Norm Ryder

FCC Commissioner, Porn on Program

Speakers on the Wi-Fi Now program include Federal Communications Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcellwho will provide a “Fireside Chat.”

Jessica RosenworcelOrganizers of Wired Health Now 2016 say they will seek to have an FCC commissioner speak at their conference.

Another session will explore “Why porn free Wi-Fi in America is possible and profitable.” Speaking will be Donna Rice Hughes of Enough is Enough and Friendly Wi-Fi.

She has been advocating an internet that would be safer for children and families since 1994 and has appeared on more than 4,000 outlets as an expert on internet safety, child sexual exploitation, prevention, digital technology, public policy, family issues and cyber-parenting. She has testified to committees of the Senate and House orf Representatives.

Other speakers include executives of Google, Samsung, Qualcomm, Microsoft, Core Networks for Carrier Wi-Fi Everywhere, Time Warner Cable, Oracle and WiFiForward.

Oregon Candidate Focuses on Wi-Fi and Children

David Morrison, candidate for the Portland City Council, is basing his campaign on his effort to curb use of Wi-Fi in schools. His website says the following:

“Microwave radiation from wireless devices is a serious public health issue that should be investigated by the City Council who should then inform the public of their findings.

“The health and genetic integrity of our children should not be compromised by industry pressure and financial kickbacks. School officials may be personally liable in eventual lawsuits for physical damage caused by chronic Wi-Fi radiation exposure in schools. Telecommunications industries are no longer eligible for liability insurance.

“Oregon House Bill 3350 introduced in 2015 would require that parents, teachers and school employees be advised that the World Health Organization has determined microwave radiation from Wi-Fi and cell towers in schools is a Class 2B carcinogen.”

Zonya Marcenaro Townsend, a candidate for the Board of Education in Orange County, Calif., has said she supports removal of Wi-Fi from schools and replacement with hard wiring. She has received support from the National Assn. for Children and Safe Technology.

Source/Fonte:

wired-health-now-2016-battles-wi-fi-now-2016

La protesta: “Lecce via cavo” segnala pericolo di malattie degenerative

11 aprile 2016 – “www.lecceprima.it”

„Il comitato spontaneo già da tempo ha chiesto al Comune di dotare gli istituti scolastici solo di reti cablate, eliminando il sistema wi-fi“

Uno dei cartelli esibiti durante la conferenza.

LECCE – Una protesta pacifica per denunciare il rischio di possibili conseguenze sulla salute dovute all’esposizione continuata alle radiofrequenze e campi elettromagnetici è andata in scena oggi durante la conferenza stampa di presentazione dell’accordo tra Comune di Lecce e Hewlett Packard, che prevede l’installazione di hot spot wi-fi sui tetti delle scuole pubbliche cittadine.

Ad animarla attivisti del comitato “Lecce via cavo”, che hanno partecipato all’incontro esibendo cartelloni. La convinzione è che debba essere applicato rispetto a questa tecnologia, in rapida diffusione da pochi anni a questa parte, del principio di precauzione basato sulle conclusioni scientifiche alle quali si può pervenire solo dopo un adeguato lasso di tempo: in altre parole, bisogna dimostrare che le radiofrequenze e campi elettromagnetici non facciano male.

I manifestanti hanno citato orientamenti maturati in ambito medico e legislazioni restrittive in altri paesi a sostegno del loro timore e già in passato hanno richiesto formalmente al Comune di Lecce di escludere le scuole dalla dotazione di dispositivi wi-fi: per i più piccoli, preferendo le reti cablate: ci sarebbe infatti la possibilità di disturbi nell’apprendimento oltre che una serie di sintomi più comuni come mal di testa e vomito.

A margine dell’incontro, l’assessore Alessandro Delli Noci ha precisato quanto segue: “Le attrezzature che abbiamo istallato sui tetti delle scuole della città sono tutte dichiarate ed approvate dal ministero delle Comunicazioni, hanno emissioni ridotte (100mw) rientranti in tutte le indicazioni degli organi ambientali, tipo Arpa e affini. Il loro posizionamento all’esterno dell’edificio rende del tutto trascurabile, se non assente, l’impatto delle onde elettromagnetiche all’interno dell’edificio stesso; e in ogni modo l’emissione di ciascun apparato è infinitesimale rispetto a quelle emesse dai telefoni cellulari che ognuno di noi ha abitualment in tasca. Poste quindi le questioni puramente tecniche, confermo che come amministrazione riteniamo il wi-fi una opportunità strategica per una città che guarda al futuro con ambizione, quale è la città di Lecce, e ringraziamo Hpe per aver investito per l’infrastrutturazione delle scuole leccesi”.

Fonte:

comitato-lecce-via-cavo-protesta-accordo-wi-fi-hpe

“School Wi-Fi led to the death of my child” says mother

11 March 2016 – “Safe Tech For Schools

A teenager committed suicide after her wireless sensitivity was not adequately dealt with by the school. News Report from December 2015.

Electromagnetic Radiation: A Modern Health Hazard?

5 April 2016 – “www.camexpo.co.uk”, by Dr Erica Mallery Blythe

We are currently witnessing the largest change to the Earth’s electromagnetic environment that has ever taken place in human history. Given that basic household electricity, which was the first anthropogenic (man-made) electromagnetic field (EMF), only became prolific during the twentieth century, artificial EMF has barely seen one generation from cradle to grave. The use of higher frequency microwave devices such as mobile telephony, Wi-Fi and smart meters, have suddenly become commonplace, despite serious health concerns.  Could this be the greatest public health disaster in human history?

Devices that emit RF radiation

Common devices that emit RF radiation include (but not exclusively) DECT phones , Wi-Fi routers, wireless computers, E-readers  and VDUs, Bluetooth, security systems, fluorescent lighting, Smart meters, RFID tags and systems and a range of novel gadgets including wearables that appear in shops on a daily basis .

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines devised in 1998   are currently used in the UK as a ‘safe limit’ for exposure, even thought they were not designed for this purpose. They protect against thermally induced (tissue heating) damage but not the ‘non-thermal’ effects which occur at much lower intensities.  Many thousands of papers  now demonstrate serious biological effects at non-thermal levels, orders of magnitude below current ICNIRP guidelines, but despite this, appropriate ‘biologically based’ protective safety limits have not been provided in the UK. In addition to neglecting non-thermal effects, these guidelines also fail to take into account cumulative effects, modulation effects, interference effects, reflection/conduction effects, frequency and intensity windows, chemical synergy and other important characteristics now known to enhance biological disruption.  Many other countries have chosen to adopt more biologically protective safety limits far below that of the UK.

Health Concerns

In 2011, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radio/microwave frequency radiation as Group 2B ‘Possibly carcinogenic to humans’. Worryingly, some of those on the IARC panel and other scientists have since publicly voiced their belief that the category should have been Group 2A “Probably carcinogenic to humans”, or Group 1 ‘Carcinogenic to humans’.  Acoustic neuroma and glioma (a rapidly progressive fatal brain cancer) satisfy the Hill criteria for causality from radiofrequency (RF) exposure.

Cancer risk, however is just one of many potential health concerns such as infertility, ADHD, insomnia, headaches, palpitations, dementia etc. Some sensitive individuals are experiencing constellations of symptoms that they may develop rapidly on exposure to any of the different devices. These individuals have a condition referred to as Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity or EHS.

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)

What should you know about EHS to help your clients protect themselves?

Definition:

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a multisystemic condition, characterised by an awareness and/or adverse symptomatology in response to even extremely weak (orders of magnitude below current safety levels) electromagnetic fields of multiple types (in terms of frequency, intensity and waveforms). All life is electrosensitive to some degree and thresholds for conscious perception vary depending on age, gender and individual physiology. Testing on both the general population and those with EHS clearly reveals that there is a far broader range of EMF sensitivity than previously assumed and sub groups of extremely hypersensitive subjects exist.

Common symptoms include:

Headaches, dizziness, sleep disturbance, sensory up-regulation, palpitations, unusual pain in multiple sites, visual disturbance, auditory disturbance (especially tinnitus), membrane sensitivity, muscle twitching, dermatological complaints, parasthesias, hyperactivity /fatigue (depends on adrenal status/stage of EHS), restless leg syndrome, memory/concentration disturbance and anxiety. Psychiatric symptoms such as anxiety and depression are likely to be secondary to the physiological effects and socioeconomic sequelae but are also known symptoms of EMF exposure in their own right. Interestingly, with good avoidance, symptoms tend to disappear in the reverse order that they accumulated.

Characterised by multiple sensory up-regulation:

Up-regulation of all senses is commonly noted in persons with EHS, i.e. Photophobia and/or Scotopic sensitivity syndrome (visual sensitivity), Hyperacusis (hearing sensitivity), Hyperosmia (heightened sense of smell), Hypergeusia (heightened taste sensitivity), Hyperesthesia/Photosensitivity (heightened skin sensitivity) and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) is associated. Thunderstorm prodrome and moon cycle (especially in women) exacerbation of symptoms is also noted.

Characterised by increasing trigger susceptibility and irreversibility:

If EHS is unmanaged and there is general deterioration, there will be reaction to an increasingly broad range of frequencies at increasingly low intensities, i.e. the number of devices complained of triggering symptoms will increaseand symptomatic distances will decrease. Tendency towards Multiple Chemical Sensitivity will also increase and irreversibility will become more likely.

Diagnosis, management and prognosis of EHS:

Diagnosis should be currently based on history (specifically classical symptom constellations in response to classical triggers and disappearance of those symptoms in ‘clean’ EMF environments. Duration of illness, symptomatic distances and range of trigger frequencies all help to quantify severity and stage of EHS. Gravity of measures taken to avoid triggers is also indicative. Biomarkers have also been published and in 2015 EUROPAEM updated medical guidelines were released. In many cases EHS is self-diagnosed due to lack of appropriate awareness and training of current medical doctors.

Management should rely on avoidance of EMF, chemical and other nitric oxide cycle triggers and general health optimisation. Additional therapies such as immunotherapy, chelation, neural re-programming and many other adjuncts are also offered by some specialists. Medical guidelines have been drawn up for doctors to diagnose and manage the condition physiologically with advice to urgently reduce exposure, and this advice is echoed by many other organizations. Additionally, research has shown avoidance can be the only reliable form of management to improve symptoms. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) may be useful in helping to control sympathetic nervous system induced exacerbation of symptoms, but should never be used to encourage EHS persons to continue EMF exposures which provoke their symptoms. To do so is unethical and dangerous to health. If implemented, it must be used in conjunction with avoidance for best health outcome. It is not a substitute.

Exposure reduction strategies:

Here are 3 simple steps to reduce your exposure to RF:

  1. Do not use mobile phones except for emergencies. Store them in flight mode and switched off, which disables the RF emissions. If you must use them, a speaker phone or an air tube headset will allow you to keep the phone at a greater distance from your body, reducing the intensity of radiation that your body is exposed to.
  1. Swap your wireless internet for Ethernet, using wired connections.  Remember that because RF is emitted from both the computer and router, you’ll need to disable the RF emissions of your router, which are different for each make and model, as well as your computer.  You can reduce the RF from your computer by disabling the wireless card in the device manager, or by using flight mode if available.
  1. Swap your cordless landline for a corded speaker phone. If you must have wireless capability, get an ECO DECT phone. Get one with a good quality speaker phone, so that it can be used away from your brain, and use ECO mode. This will ensure that at least the RF is only emitted when the phone is in use, rather than continuously, as with other models.

Generally avoid EMF where possible, and create the greatest distance you are able to, where avoidance is difficult. Sleeping areas are the most important areas to make EMF healthy by reducing as many artificial EMFs as possible, including the lower frequency fields from simple household wiring. Electromagnetic fields that cannot be deactivated can sometimes be shielded so that the energy does not propagate into living spaces, and meters can be purchased or rented that will allow the user to measure the frequency and intensity of fields in different areas.

Prognosis for EHS is variable, but full reversal of the condition is unlikely. Full remission of all adverse symptoms is possible even in very severe cases if the individual is moved into a very pure environment (both chemically and electromagnetically), but symptoms will return if re-exposed, at a time interval dependent on duration of ‘good health’ and level of environmental hostility. Certain history characteristics indicate poorer prognosis.

How common is EHS?

Estimates for the number of people with EHS vary widely, but several countries report around 4-10%. In the UK this corresponds to approximately 2.5 to 6.3 million (which is more than the number of UK wheelchair users). This is likely to be a gross underestimation given that figures are based on the number of people who have made the connection between their symptoms and EMF exposure. The number of people who have mild EHS symptoms, but have not linked them yet to exposure would be far higher. Given the ubiquity of exposures now in all environments, it can be very difficult for people to notice the association, as the opportunity for an EMF free area is rare.

Extrapolated figures suggest that 50% of the population may be affected by 2017, and it remains possible that EHS could manifest in all members of the population with enough exposure.

Many children are currently affected, but undiagnosed. Children are likely to be more vulnerable to developing EHS since their exposure is higher and outcomes may be worse given their developing systems and greater time for latent effects.  Brain tumours have overtaken leukaemia as a leading cause of death in children (both are associated with EMF exposure).   There is evidence that genetic damage caused by exposure within current guidelines may not only damage the exposed child, but could also damage their offspring.

In addition to those with EHS and children, other vulnerable groups include the elderly, pregnant women, foetuses and those with co-morbidity (concurrent) illnesses.

Is EHS a recognised condition?

Yes. EHS has been demonstrated in a published, peer-reviewed, double blind research study, as an ‘environmentally inducible bona-fide neurological syndrome’.  The WHO states that ‘symptoms are certainly real’ and ‘in some cases can be disabling’.  Increasingly, professional bodies are recognising this as a serious, physical condition.

Whilst the nocebo effect (physical symptoms induced by fear) has been suggested, there is a great deal of evidence now to invalidate this theory, including evidence of EHS type symptomatology in studies involving small children, foetuses and animals (where media cultivated perceptions are impossible).

The condition is recognized as a functional impairment under the disability act in Sweden, USA and Canada.  Cases are now being won for long term disability pensions or compensation in Australia, France, Spain, UK and United States.

Some EHS individuals are forced to live in extreme isolation, poverty and poor health, unable to access life sustaining public amenities. A duty of care to them exists under the Care Act 2014.

There are clear human rights issues, particularly for vulnerable groups, but in essence for any individual who wishes not to be exposed in their home, place of work or public building and yet is being given no choice.

Precautionary Principle

The application of the Precautionary Principle has been called for by many professional organisations in this case, in order to protect health and right to life first and foremost, but secondly to protect the economy given the already apparent escalating costs to this country of ill health and loss of revenue.

In order to protect vulnerable groups there has been increased call for designated, legally protected white zones (no or low EMF areas).   The longer that we take to respond, the greater the health cost, but also the greater the cost to industry (in terms of compensation) will be. This is only moving in one direction, and if human health is protected and industry is redirected towards healthier technology, overall true progress is made for all.

Dr Mallery-Blythe will be talking about Electromagnetic Radiation and its effects on health, at CNM (College of Naturopathic Medicine) in London on 7th June.  Details from www.naturopathy-uk.com

About the author

erica_mbDr Erica Mallery-Blythe is an experienced medical doctor with an interest in Electromagnetic Radiation.  She is the founder of PHIRE (Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment), which provides useful free online resources at www.phiremedical.org. You may wish to join or support PHIRE for:

  • Medical doctors and associate specialists interested in EMF Health
  • Supporting vulnerable groups including children and those with EHS
  • Expanding current British research team
  • Annually sharing new research
  • Maintaining global academic connections
  • Constructing English / UK medical best practice guidelines
  • Opening constructive dialogue with PHE/DOH

 

About CNM

CNM provides Diploma Courses, Postgraduate Courses and Short Courses in a range of natural therapies. There are CNM colleges across the UK, Ireland, and in Finland, South Africa and the USA. www.naturopathy-uk.com

Source/Fonte:

electromagnetic-radiation-modern-health-hazard

“INQUINAMENTO ELETTROMAGNETICO DA ALTE E BASSE FREQUENZE: UNA REALE EMERGENZA SANITARIA”

[Corso di formazione ECM per PEDIATRI]

“INQUINAMENTO ELETTROMAGNETICO DA ALTE E BASSE FREQUENZE: UNA REALE EMERGENZA SANITARIA”

8.30/13.30 – 09 aprile 2016 – Istituto DE FILIPPI – via Brambilla, 15 – Varese

 

PROGRAMMA

8.30-9.00
Presentazioni e introduzione al convegno

9.00-9.45
CAMPI ELETTROMAGNETICI NON-IONIZZANTI (CEM): quali rischi per la salute umana?
Prof.Levis

9.45-10.00
Discussione   

10.00-10.45
EFFETTI ACUTI NOCIVI PER LA SALUTE UMANA, PROVOCATI DA RADIAZIONI ELETTROMAGNETICHE NON-IONIZZANTI
Ipersensibilità ai campi elettromagnetici.
Dott. Paolo Orio

10.45-11.00
Discussione 

11.00-11.30
Pausa     
 

11.30-11.45
I BAMBINI E L’UTILIZZO DEI DISPOSITIVI WIRELESS
Laura Masiero

11.45 – 12.30
Discussione

12.30 – 12.45
Conclusioni

12.45 – 13.30
Test di valutazione dell apprendimento.Customer

 

RELATORI

Prof. Angelo Gino Levis, Biologo Docente ed esperto internazionale di danni organici  da inquinamento elettromagnetico

Dott. Paolo Orio, Vice Presidente della Associazione Italiana Elettrosensibili

Laura Masiero, Presidente A.P.P.L.E. Associazione Per la Prevenzione e la Lotta all’Elettrosmog

Versione PDF del PROGRAMMA scaricabile al seguente link:

6 aprile 2016 – corso ECM per pediatri – PROGRAMMA

Does Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Originate from Nocebo Responses? Indications from a Qualitative Study

[Quando viene effettuato uno studio di qualità sulla EHS, l’EFFETTO NOCEBO viene SMENTITO.

Da notare quanto segue:

“Overall, symptoms appear before subjects start questioning effects of EMF on their health, which is not consistent with the hypothesis that IEI-EMF originates from nocebo responses to perceived EMF exposure.”

“In generale, i sintomi compaiono prima che soggetti inizino ad interrogarsi sugli effetti dei campi elettromagnetici sulla loro salute, il che non è coerente con l’ipotesi che la Intolleranza Ambientale Idiopatica attribuita ai Campi Elettromagnetici origini da risposte nocebo dovute a percepita esposizione ai campi elettromagnetici.”

Questo è un aspetto fondamentale, che da solo basterebbe a smentire chiunque parli di EFFETTO NOCEBO, facendo venire meno la necessità di produrre studi in merito alla questione.

E dalle storie di Elettrosensibilità che abbiamo raccolto, emerge chiaramente che i malati hanno iniziato ad avere problemi ben prima di scoprire a cosa fossero dovuti.

Non si tratta di sintomi, ma di segni (!), ergo di qualcosa di obiettivo e tangibile: disturbi endocrinologici con manifestazioni cliniche importanti, rash cutanei di varia natura, disturbi urinari gravi con infezioni urinarie ricorrenti, disturbi gastrointestinali, …, che hanno portato a trafile cliniche lunghissime datanti molti anni (in alcuni casi anche 20 o più!), prima che i diretti interessati iniziassero ad avere il sospetto della causa!

La scoperta della causa li ha poi portati ad allontanarsi dalle fonti di CEM che loro avevano individuato come responsabili e, cosa ancora più degna di nota, l’allontanamento ha portato ad una TOTALE regressione delle patologie di cui sopra, le quali immancabilmente si ripresentavano in caso di successive esposizioni.

Francamente, una somatizzazione può anche dissimulare una patologia neurologica, ma non è in grado di causare infezioni urinarie come la cistite emorragica, oppure ileo paralitico, eruzioni cutanee eritemato-papulose su base endocrinologica od allergica, tricodistrofia e caduta dei capelli, ecc.]

Bioelectromagnetics. 2016 Jan;37(1):14-24. doi: 10.1002/bem.21937. Epub 2015 Sep 15.

by Dieudonné M1

1Centre Max Weber and Université Lumière-Lyon 2, Lyon, France.

ARTICLE INFO

Article history
Received for review: 20 June 2015
Accepted: 3 September 2015
Published online: 15 September 2015 in Wiley Online Library

Conflict of interest: None.

Keywords
IEI-EMF; attribution process; causal reasoning; idiopathic environmental intolerance; illness narratives

ABSTRACT

Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance attributed to Electromagnetic Fields (IEI-EMF) is a condition in which symptoms are attributed to electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. As electro-hypersensitive (EHS) people have repeatedly been observed, during provocation trials, to report symptoms following perceived rather than actual exposure, the hypothesis has been put forward that IEI-EMF originates from psychological mechanisms, especially nocebo responses. This paper examines this hypothesis, using data from a qualitative study aimed at understanding how EHS people come to regard themselves as such. Forty self-diagnosed EHS people were interviewed. A typified model of their attribution process was then elaborated, inductively, from their narratives. This model is linear and composed of seven stages: (1) onset of symptoms; (2) failure to find a solution; (3) discovery of EHS; (4) gathering of information about EHS; (5) implicit appearance of conviction; (6) experimentation; (7) conscious acceptance of conviction. Overall, symptoms appear before subjects start questioning effects of EMF on their health, which is not consistent with the hypothesis that IEI-EMF originates from nocebo responses to perceived EMF exposure. However, such responses might occur at the sixth stage of the process, potentially reinforcing the attribution. It remains possible that some cases of IEI-EMF originate from other psychological mechanisms.

Source/Fonte:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26369906

Full paper PDF/ PDF dello studio completo:

EFFETTO NOCEBO-studio di qualità

Weather radars and health problems

17 March 2016 – “Omega News”, by Georgiy Ostroumov, Ph.D., microwaves, Finland

Weather radars send directional pulses of microwave radiation, on the order of a microsecond long. Between each pulse, the radar serves as a receiver as it listens for return signals from particles in the air. The duration of the “listen” cycle is on the order of a millisecond, which is a thousand times longer than the pulse duration.

The radar uses a series of typical angles (elevation angles of an antenna). After each scanning rotation, antenna elevation is changed. This scenario will be repeated on many angles to scan all the volume of air around the radar within the maximum range. Usually, this scanning strategy is completed within 5 to 10 minutes to have data within 15 km above ground and 250 km distance of the radar. The radars use angles ranging from 0.3 to 25 degrees.
 
Due to such angles (about 0.3 degrees) the radiation of the radar can easily penetrate into many living houses. Unfortunately in many cases there are no reasons to elevate antenna beam over the living houses because static obstacles often cannot disturb work of the radar. It is very bad that a big town may be the “static obstacle” too.
On the contrary, rotating blades of wind turbines often lead to essential mistakes for the radar. The wind turbines having appeared in Kotka (Finland), the antenna beam of the radar was elevated. At least power density(exposure) was reduced from 300 mW/m2 to 20 mW/m2 at fixed measurement place.
 
I have a friend who suffers even from weak microwave radiation. In this connection she is forced to live far from typical sources of the radiation. Some times ago she said that she began suffering from some new source of the radiation. When she moved to live into low place her negative symptoms disappeared. Unfortunately this place was not suitable for living especially in winter.
About the same time the newest weather radar started working. Distance of the radar to her home was about 100 km. She wanted to know whether the radar was cause for her suffering. Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland (STUK) answered that maximum exposure of the radiation from the radar was 0.3 % of the national limit ( limit of the ICNIRP). This response was unable to help her. Thus she had to leave home to another place (often only, a caravan in winter forest).
 
Whether exposure of the radiation from the radar can lead to health problems if person lives at distance about 100 km to the radar ? To answer this question we need a reliable limit for long-term exposure of the radiation. I think that nowadays only the limit1(0.1) mW/m2 for long-term  exposure worth using ((Resolution 1815, Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe,http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994&).
I could not help calculating.
If radiation power of the radar is 250 kW(peak) and antenna gain is 40 dB,  the power density can be 20 mW/m2 at 100 km to the radar. Thus, the radiation might be detrimental, even if the distance is over 100 km from the radar!
How about 0.3 % ? It means “only” 30000 mW/m2. Here is no mistake in my calculation. The ICNIRP has permitted special limit for the radiation from the radar in thousand times as much as usual limit!
I suppose the most typical symptom from such radar can be tinnitus because the duration of the “listen” cycle is on the order of a millisecond.
Thus, if a country is using a network of these radars, health problems are possible for whole population of the country.
 
Georgiy Ostroumov, Ph.D., microwaves, Finland

Source/Fonte:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=de#!topic/omeganews/mdc2Yvf_j0Y

Electrosensitivity: as experienced by an electrosensitive person and assessed by scientists

by Franz Adlkofer

Electrosensitivity experienced by an electrosensitive person

On February 13, 2013, the body of Carsten Häublein a former pastor from Ammertal, was recovered from the river Schlei in Schleswig-Holstein (Germany). From the available evidence, it was concluded that he had taken his own life. After seven years of suffering whenever he was exposed to mobile communication radiation (RFEMF), he obviously had lost the courage to continue this way of life. Half a year before he died, on September 13, 2012, I received a mail from him at 2:46 a.m. in which he described his state of health as follows:

My formerly radiation-free home in the North of Schleswig-Holstein, where I took shelter after fleeing from Bavaria and where I became free of symptoms and again socially acceptable, has turned into a buzzing, whizzing, and burning inferno precisely at the same time when the horror “LTE” was introduced nation-wide …

I only hold out by lying for about 3-4 hours each day in a tub filled with salt water, afterwards covering myself with piles of emergency blankets and winding a canopy around my head – just enough not to suffocate. Then I find several, a few hours of sleep …

The brutal nocturnal charge, which I do not get rid off during the day in any other place but in the water, causes an increasing intolerance of also this PC, the stove, the phone, the car’s electrics, and so on – something I did not experience at all until July this year. To write a letter like this one I am perhaps able every other two days. For some people this is a sort of death sentence.

Yet, I still seem to be able to regenerate: After each swim in the salt containing river Schlei and after each bath in the tub I feel free from symptoms. This is the proof for me that all the wild turbulences are of exogenous nature, owed to a noxious state hostile to life which from the outside attacks and tortures my body. The wellbeing, though, does not last very long …

A second mail followed a few hours later:

Dear Prof. Franz Adlkofer,
Carsten Häublein is writing – but this time not with a substantial message but in very deep distress because of new EMF stress. If you can arrange it, please call me – xxxxx. Whatever we exchange, please treat it with absolute discretion – many greetings
Carsten Häublein

Both mails give evidence that the pastor Häublein must have been in an emotional state marked by despair, bitterness, and hopelessness. His enemies, who from the beginning thought of him as a mentally ill person, will probably feel fully supported in their view by the description of his suffering, and they will not even wonder at all what made him so very ill. But the answer clearly lies in his move from South to North Germany. Between 2006 and 2009, he was ill in the radiation-exposed Ammertal, he then felt well again in 2009 after moving to a radiation-free spot at the Baltic Sea. When the radiation finally reached his new home in 2012, his illness not only returned, but was worse than before. With his long ordeal and his reoccurrances when confronted with new exposures, he proved that his electrosensitivity was caused by electromagnetic fields.

Since 2006, pastor Häublein was strongly committed to have electrosensitivity regarded as an environmental illness. He did not want and could not approve that German politicians responsible for taking care of the health of the people, would sit back and watch how a minority of people are deprived of their right to health. As science obviously could not help him and the many other persons concerned, he intended to have a court decision on this matter and he wanted to hear my opinion. I believe it is in his interest that on the occasion of the third anniversary of his death I write this report.

I told pastor Häublein that in my opinion a court action to have electrosensitivity recognized as an environmental disease would be doomed to fail. The judge would refer to the safety limits of RF-EMF, which the German Commission on Radiological Protection (SSK) and the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) – opposite to my view – claim to reliably protect the people against any health risk. It could also to be added that the radiation emitted by base stations and other radiating devices fall well below the safety limits. The prospects of convincing a judge that the BfS hardly knows anything about the biological effects of mobile communication radiation and, therefore, uses the “expertise” of “experts” from the mobile communication industry are certainly rather poor. Furthermore, should indeed a courageous judge be found who believes that the plaintiff’s personal history and the causes behind his illness may be true, he would probably be set right latest in the second instance.

Electrosensitivity assessed by scientists

The Häublein case is an example of a tragedy in Europe, where thousands of people suffering from the aftereffects of electrosensitivity are classified as psychologically peculiar or even mentally disturbed. The sole reason of this claim is to deny RF-EMF being the cause of this suffering. The German SSK made a statement on this issue in 2011 in an especially perfidious way:

Thus, looking at the international literature altogether the conclusion can be drawn despite the different definition of target groups and recruitments that “electrosensitivity” in the sense of being causally connected to EMF exposition most probably does not exist. Further research therefore should be carried out in a subject area outside EMF research.

The way the issue of electrosensitivity is dealt with arouses the suspicion that the ignoring of any effects is based on an arrangement between industry and politics.

Scientists, who are selected for this kind of research by industry and politics because they know a lot about psychology and psychiatry, but often nothing about RF-EMF, try to find out – endowed with ample funds – if there are any differences in behaviour and sensitivity between non-electrosensitive and electrosensitive people. With the statistical evaluation of experimental or questionnaire data, they come to the conclusion that the electrosensitive persons suffer significantly more from somatoform disorders, without finding an adequate physical cause for the symptoms described. Unanimously, the researchers then state that the suffering of these people can be very severe due to these somatoform disorders and that this has to be taken seriously. Yet, unanimously they are of the opinion that the research results obtained cannot confirm RF-EMF being a cause of the electrosensitivity. Thus, the way for the so-called risk communication is paved for which the mobile communication industry has a special group of “experts” on stand-by. Regularly, it informs the public that based on the available investigations it is scientifically proven that electrosensitivity occurs quite independently from RF-EMF exposure and that, too, it has nothing to do with it, because, they believe that below the safety limits there are no relevant biological effects causing a health risk.

In his report on the BioEM2015 (1) , Prof. Dariusz Leszczynski states that all studies concerning the question of electrosensitivity, which are quoted as proof against electromagnetic fields causing health disorders, are from their approach inadequate to justify this conclusion. He talks of a standstill in science because for years it has been limited to the questions “how do you feel” and “what do you feel” instead of impartially searching with molecular-biological techniques for the physiological differences between electrosensitive and healthy persons. The biggest obstacle to advancing knowledge in this field, according to Leszczynski, is that scientists obviously lack ideas for new research approaches. What he hides is the fact that industry and government, the only ones having the necessary funds, do not support the research approach he proposes. His professional experience is the best proof that this assumption is correct: His research division at the national STUK in Finland was closed in 2012 and he lost his job apparently because he had started to turn to this neglected research area (2) .

The reason that there is no real explanation for electrosensitivity caused by mobile communication radiation is not at all a proof against the assumption that electrosensitivity is a special form of the radiation illness known for a long time. The argument also turns into air because there are other diseases with a pathogenesis only partly or not at all understood, but without anyone doubting their existence. Pastor Häublein – by the way not the only one – claims that the symptoms of electrosensitivity disappeared all the sudden after moving to a radiation-free place, but returned all the sudden when the place was connected to radio network via LTE. Furthermore, he has shown himself that protection from the external radiation is possible under certain conditions. If this is true, and we do not have any reason to doubt, any further proof of the causality of an interaction would not be necessary – quite independently from knowing the mechanisms.

In the meantime it is well known that radiation effects exist also below the safety limits, which industry and politics categorically ruled out so far. Further proof was recently provided by Professor Alexander Lerchl from the private Jacobs University Bremen, a former member of SSK – even if just by accident. For many years, Alexander Lerchl ensured the harmlessness of RF-EMF with exclusively negative results. Recently, however, he was forced to confirm – based on the outcome of a study financed by industry and politics and carried out by his research group – something which he had vehemently denied before: RF-EMF in form of UMTS can increase tumour growth in mice below the safety limits (3) . By the way, the mechanism of this process is still a mystery just as the one of electrosensitivity. Tumour promotion is with a high probability accompanied by tumour initiation. The genotoxic potential of RF-EMF as demonstrated in laboratory studies and the outcome of several epidemiological studies speak in favour of this assumption. Altogether, the conclusion can be drawn that biological organisms of any nature, be it single cells, animals or humans, may be at risk in some way due to RFEMF exposure. If this is possible, inevitably the question arises why it should not be responsible for the symptoms of electrosensitivity also.

Dariusz Leszczynski criticizes in his report on the BioEM2015 that during the conference a vast number of bioelectromagnetic topics were dealt with, yet biological effects on humans were sparsely presented. However, without such investigations it is nearly impossible to prove that electromagnetic fields cause physiological changes in human organisms that are relevant for the development of diseases. He suspects that this kind of research is more or less blocked by decision-makers in politics and industry who may be afraid of the possibly awkward consequences from the results. That Dariusz Leszcynski’s suspicion is more than justified reflects the dealing with the REFLEX-Study, a research project designed as required by him. In this study financed by the European Union and coordinated by me we found genotoxic effects of RF-EMF far below the safety limits. To get rid of these results, in 2008, Alexander Lerchl – who no doubt acted in the interest of the industry – suddenly claimed that the REFLEX results would be faked. With this kind of emergency brake, he obviously intended to prevent the support for the REFLEX link-up study on which the decision of the European Union was pending. He adhered to this allegation for years until finally in 2015 the Hamburg District Court forced him to recant and convicted him of defamation and libel.

Outlook

As it currently appears, politicians responsible for the health of people seem to rank the business of the mobile communication industry higher than they rank the protection of the people suffering from electrosensitivity. This is illustrated especially by the government-funded pseudo-research in this area, the pseudo-results of which make it possible to play down the relevance of electrosensitivity for the health of people. Upon the invitation by members of the EU Parliament, a hearing took place on January 12, 2016, which dealt with electrosensitivity. The outcome remains to be seen. In preparation of the hearing the Initiative Citizens of the World called attention to the International Electromagnetic Field Scientist Appeal signed by 218 scientists from 40 countries in 2015 which states among others:

Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines.

Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans.

Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.

In the meantime there are first signs that the policy of playing down the environmental radiation exposure as harmless may slowly come to an end. A court in Toulouse, France, considered it proven based on medical certificates that Ms Marine R. just as pastor Häublein is suffering from gnawing aches in head and spine and sleep disorders near base stations, smartphones, and even TVs. Therefore, it classified the plaintiff 85% severely handicapped and awarded her with a monthly pension of 800 € for three years. In order to avoid any exposure to electromagnetic fields Ms Marine R. now lives in an old stone house in the Pyrenees near the Spanish border without electricity and running water, and of course without mobile phones.
Let us hope that courageous judges will be found not only in France who understand the basis for electrosensitivity, who question the rationale for the safety limits and who provide justice to electrosensitive people.

(1) http://www.pandora-foundation.eu/downloads/bioem2015_report-_dl.pdf
(2) http://www.pandora-foundation.eu/downloads/pandora_docu_comment-on-leszczynski.pdf
(3) http://www.pandora-foundation.eu/downloads/adlkofer_-statement-on-lerchl-09-03-2015.pdf


Pandora – Foundation for independent research 2016

Source/Fonte:

http://www.pandora-foundation.eu/downloads/pandora_ehs-haeublein_160309_english.pdf

Educazione – Salute e nuove tecnologie wireless nelle scuole

21 marzo 2016, dalle ore 18 alle 20
AULA MAGNA dell’Istituto PRIMO LEVI DI TORINO
c.so Unione Sovietica 490

“Educazione – salute e
nuove tecnologie wireless nelle
scuole”

con la partecipazione del Dr. Paolo Orio
Vicepresidente
della
Associazione Italiana Elettrosensibili

Incontro aperto al pubblico,
ma su prenotazione e fino ad esaurimento posti.

Per la prenotazione
Inviare un sms
al n. di servizio
330885264

Ai partecipanti interessati si rilascia attestato di presenza

Gentilmente si chiede puntualità
causa collegamenti Skype
e firme di presenza

[Dettagli dell’evento nelle immagini qui sotto: cliccare sopra per ingrandire]

 

Elettrosensibili

Elettrosensibili

Arguments for a functional impairment recognition of electrohypersensitivity

[Alcune considerazioni di Marine Richard, il primo caso di EHS riconosciuta da un tribunale francese come invalidità, e la risposta del prof. Olle Johansson.]

3 March 2016 – “Mobilfunk Newsletter – EMF Omega News”

Please, find below a very important message from Ms Marine Richard in France, the lady who is the first person with the functional impairment electrohypersensitivity to be recognized by a French tribunal and given monetary disability support.

Further down you also find my reply to her.

Olle Johansson, associate professor
The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm
Sweden

Från: Marine Richard
Skickat: den 2 mars 2016 18:40
Till: Olle Johansson


Thank you very much for your interest and concern about electrohypersensitivity.

As a person with EHS, as an activist and as the first ‘case’ of EHS recognized by a French tribunal as impaired I wish to tell you a word about this important question : what is the best strategy to help people with EHS (and fast !) ? Impairment of disease ?

In my opinion, it is important to see three different aspects :

1/ the environment is polluted by EMFs and all beings on earth are impacted. No scientific doubt on this point.

2/ people with EHS GET sick in a specific environment, different from one person to an other. So it is at the moment impossible to establish a simple ‘systematic cause>systematic consequence’ scheme. We would lose time if we fight on this aspect at the political level as the lobbies use this difference of sensitivity to create a doubt. Time we don’t have as so many people are suffering !!!

Each person with EMF sensitivities develops a specific nervous response to specific EMFs, at a specific moment probably because of several different factors (nervous over-excitability, high exposure, exposure to chemicals, PTSD, genetic factors – we don’t know the cocktail yet because it has never been studied). Considering that, it is impossible to prove EHS is a disease. But it is easy to prove that the symptoms appear and disappear depending on the environment. For example, a very easy way to test me (only me as we all are different) : we discovered that if I touch the skin of a person who is using the metallic trackpad of a computer plugged with electric power (and a bad earthing), I can feel a strange sensation in my hand, if you unplug the computer, my strange sensation stops. This test is 100% sure. But only on me ! We tested it several times. People without MY EMF sensitivity can’t feel the difference. So we can say that I have an immediate reaction to EMFs. In the example of the trackpad, it doesn’t cause me a disability. But it simply proves that I do have a reaction to the changes of the environment. If it is so for me why not for other people with different frequencies and more serious symptoms ? As a consequence, EHS can be an impairment. Nobody can tell us the contrary.

3/ EHS as an intolerance is reversible, there are ways to use neuroplasticity to go back to the sensitivity one had before EHS appeared. There are cases of full recovery or real improvement. But it doesn’t work with everyone, it takes time in a protected zone and it doesn’t change the fact that the environment IS toxic when it is polluted by EMFs. People with EHS and ‘normal’ people with a consciousness should be able to choose the environment they live in. If EHS is recognized as an impairment, the states will have no other choice but to create protected areas where we would be able to live, impaired and not impaired, all together with bees, robins and tomato plants also physically stressed by EMFs (as proved by the research)!

Thank you for your time and understanding.

Be happy !

Marine Richard (France)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Från: Olle Johansson
Skickat: den 2 mars 2016 22:06
Till: Marine Richard

I am very, very impressed by your elegant summary, it is so right-to-the-point. If everyone could see what you have learnt – the very hard way – then they would only argue for a functional impairment recognition of electrohypersensitivity, and an immediate clean-up of the environment, as well as an immediate economic reimbursement for all cases of electrohypersensitivity.

As you point out, an impairment is – by definition – not defined by someone else or proven by certain tests. The impairment is always individual, personal, and private, and develops when in contact with an inferior environment. [N.B. Remember that functional impairments are only based upon each individual’s impaired accessability to – and contact with – an inferior environment (cf. the UN), thus, there is actually no need for any “recognition” in local laws (cf. the UN).]

Accessibility measures are key issues for allowing electrohypersensitive persons, and others with functional impairments, to gain/regain their rightful independence. If such measures are allowed, then full recovery or real improvement will come. As you point out, it doesn’t – however – work for everyone, it takes time in a protected zone, and it doesn’t change the fact that the environment IS toxic when it is polluted by EMFs. Also, always remember that inaccessibility and discrimination are prohibited by law, so society must act.

I have always said that we should make it easy for us – by making sure to connect to all the UN texts, realize that it’s the whole environment that must be accessability-adapted, and do not forget that such accessibility measures actually are 100% positive for everyone to share! People with functional impairments should have full access to the entire society, not just a small part of it. The human rights for all of us, regardless of functional impairments, are that we should live an equal life in a society based on equality. It’s that simple.(I have never heard anyone voluntarily wanting to give up their human rights, so be sure not to have any country forcing it’s citizens to it; it would be extremely shameful.)

I agree, it is impossible to prove electrohypersensitivity to be a disease … since the sick and ill ‘patient’, with the ‘disease’, is the environment, not the person.
Olle Johansson, associate professor

The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm
Sweden

Source/Fonte:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mobilfunk_newsletter/4swWB0vsHZk