“CELLULARI, WIFI & Co”, 8 luglio 2016 – serata informativa

 

Venerdì 8 luglio 2016
dalle ore 21:00

Auditorium Santa Chiara
via F. Cane, 31 – Casale Monferrato (AL)

Serata informativa sull’uso consapevole di cellulari, wifi, ecc.,
e i rischi potenziali per la salute.

Organizzata dalle associazioni
Mamme in Cerchio, L’Albero di Valentina, Passi di Vita Onlus,
con il patrocinio
del Comune di Casale  Monferrato e dell’Ordine dei Farmacisti della provincia di Alessandria.

con la partecipazione
del Dr. Paolo Orio e del Dr. Sergio Crippa
della
Associazione Italiana Elettrosensibili

[Per maggiori dettagli, vedere la locandina qui sotto.
Cliccare sulla immagine per ingrandirla.]

Elettrosensibili

Una presentazione della serata su “Il Monferrato”, di Marco Bertoncini.

[Cliccare sulla immagine per ingrandirla.]

Elettrosensibili

We live in a wired world, ignoring potential threats from our devices

[“Phone owners assume – wrongly – that their devices already adhere to strong safety guidelines, not realizing that the current regulatory landscape is a sham.”

“I proprietari dei telefoni ritengono – a torto – che i loro dispositivi già aderiscano a linee guida di sicurezza efficaci, senza rendersi conto che l’attuale panorama normativo è una farsa.”]

20 March 2016 – “www.pressherald.com”, by MARINA SCHAUFFLER

Our cellphones, Wi-Fi, laptops, tablets may damage our brains.

When the topic of cellphone safety arises, common responses harken back to grade school – stopping just short of the fingers-over-ears intonation “I can’t HEAR you!”

Our addiction to these captivating devices is not the only reason we remain uninformed. The science is complex, with plenty of troubling findings but enough uncertainty to rationalize the mantra of “more research needed.”

Phone owners assume – wrongly – that their devices already adhere to strong safety guidelines, not realizing that the current regulatory landscape is a sham.

Hardest of all, cellphones are part of an elephant that dominates not just the room but the planet. In a few short decades, we’ve wired our world and most of us now live in a thicket of ElectroMagnetic Frequency  or Radiation.

This non-ionizing “microwave” radiation comes not just from cellphones and cordless phones, but from laptops, tablets, hard drives, Wi-Fi, radio and cell antennae, baby monitors, so-called “smart” meters, and other hardware of modern life. All forms of EMR “have observable effects on biological systems,” writes Martin Blank, Ph.D., a biophysicist at Columbia University, in his book “Overpowered.”

In May 2015, a group of 190 leading scientists from around the world issued an appeal requesting that the United Nations and the World Health Organization develop “more protective guidelines” for wireless radiation (see emfscientist.org). These researchers, who collectively have published more than 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on EMF, have found evidence of reproductive and learning impairments as well as neurological, hormonal and cardiological disruptions.

What gets most press is the threat of increased tumors – several kinds of brain tumors and ones associated with the salivary glands. Studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that heavy cellphone use over a decade or more can increase risk of these cancers.

Microwave radiation is notoriously uneven and can produce hotspots of intense exposure. That is why microwave ovens have turntables. But as Devra Davis, notes, “we can’t rotate our brains while we are on the cellphone.”

Few health studies to date reflect today’s intensity of cellphone use or the varied exposures to wireless radiation. One cellular phone study that the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer relied on in labeling wireless radiation a “Class 2B Possible Carcinogen” considered “high exposure” 30 minutes a day over a period of more than 10 years. By today’s measures, where many users log up to 480 hours a month, that “high” seems absurdly low.

EMR impacts on young people have not been researched much, even though scientists have demonstrated that children’s brains can absorb twice as much radiation – because they have thinner skulls and bone marrow and higher fluid content. Many schools now have Wi-Fi routers that expose children to elevated EMR throughout the day.

With EMR – as with tobacco, pesticides and flame retardants – the strong hand of industry has skewed both science and policy. “They buy silence. They buy apathy. They buy politicians,” says Lt. Governor of California Gavin Newsom in the documentary “Mobilize.” He might have added, “They buy scientists,” as a vast number of the studies finding no health threats have been industry-funded.

There’s a revolving door between regulatory agencies and industry. Tom Wheeler, now chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), served for eight years as president and CEO of the cell industry trade group, the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association.

Lobbying efforts in Washington have won the industry regulatory carte blanche – such as a rider in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Section 704) that prohibits citizens and local governments from stopping placement of a cell tower “on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.” That decision rests only with the FCC. Now cell antennae are everywhere – atop churches, apartment buildings, nursing homes, and hospitals as well as on school grounds.

The FCC has not updated its maximum exposure guidelines for cellphones in two decades, despite requests from groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control issued a warning on its website in June 2014 urging “caution in cellphone use,” only to erase it – without explanation – two months later.

Typically, with a new technology that could pose serious health threats, government should operate under the Precautionary Principle – requiring proof of safety. That is not happening: it is caveat emptor – buyer (and user) beware.

The EMR elephant will not go away, but devices, buildings and communities could and should be better designed to minimize exposure. Until that happens, it’s only prudent to treat wireless devices with caution. We’re participating in a vast global experiment, and to date there’s been no informed consent.

Marina Schauffler, Ph.D., is a writer who runs Natural Choices (naturalchoices.com).

 

Reported Health Effects From Non-Ionizing RF Radiation

[I seguenti studi indicano l’esistenza di effetti biologici per livelli di esposizione a radiazioni in Radiofrequenza del telefono cellulare che sono molto al di sotto di quello che può essere spiegato con i cosiddetti “effetti termici”, e ben all’interno del range cui le persone sono comunemente esposte quotidianamente durante l’uso dei loro telefoni cellulari.

NOTA: La maggior parte dei livelli di esposizione indicati qui sotto sono ben al di sotto degli attuali standard per la sicurezza negli Stati Uniti, che si basano solo sugli “effetti termici”.]

Reported Biological Effects From Non-Ionizing Radio-frequency RF Radiation

Low Level RF Radiation Health Concern

The following studies indicate biological effects at cell phone rf radiation exposure levels which are far below what can be explained by “thermal effects”, and well within the range people are commonly exposed to every day on their cell phones.

NOTE: Most of these below exposures levels are FAR BELOW the current advisory exposure standards in the US, which are based on thermal effects only.  Click here to learn why SAR levels should not be used as a safety standard

Studies by Increasing Power Density

Studies by Increasing Specific Absorption Rate

Standards and Background Levels

Listing of Full Citations

 

Note: For an effect to be considered truly “nonthermal”, that is, a “microwave effect”, they must be experimentally distinguishable from heating effects due to absorbed RF energy as measured with SAR Testing.

 

One more strong point to validate that SAR testing is not adequate for judging a cell phone users safety.

With SAR testing, Dummy heads are filled with solutions to simulate brain conductivity and probed to measure depth and intensity. Amazingly enough regulatory agencies have not deemed it necessary to measure exposure to eyes.  Eye’s are unprotected by the skull and comprised of cells that are extremely sensitive to electromagnetic energy.

 

RF Radiation Hazards

Studies by Increasing Power Density

Power Density Reported Biological Effects References
0.1 µW/cm2
(0.001 W/Kg SAR)
EEG brain waves are altered when exposed to cell phone signal Von Klitzing, 1995
0.16 µW/cm2 Motor function, memory and attention of school children affected (Latvia) Kolodynski, 1996
0.168 – 1.053 µW/cm2 Irreversible infertility in mice after 5 generations of exposure to cell phone signals from antenna park Magras & Xenos, 1997
0.2 – 8 µW/cm2 Two-fold increase in childhood leukemia from AM-FM exposure Hocking, 1996
1.3 – 5.7 µW/cm2 Two-fold increase in leukemia in adults from AM RF exposure Dolk, 1997
2.4 µW/cm2 Interference with medical devices at least up to 1000 MHz Joyner, 1996
2 – 4 µW/cm2 Direct effect of RFR on ion channels in cells/opening of acetycholine channels D’Inzeo, 1988
4 – 10 µW/cm2 Visual reaction time in children is slowed//lower memory function in tests Chiang, 1989
5 – 10 µW/cm2 Impaired nervous system activity Dumanski, 1974
10 µW/cm2 Significant differences in visual reaction time and reduced memory function Chiang, 1989
10 – 25 µW/cm2 Changes in the hippocampus of the brain Belokrinitskiy, 1982
30 µW/cm2
(0.015 W/Kg SAR)
Immune system effects – elevation of PFC count (antibody producing cells) Veyret, 1991
50 µW/cm2 An 18% reduction in REM sleep (important to memory and learning functions) Mann, 1996
100 µW/cm2 Changes in immune system function Elekes, 1996
100 µW/cm2 A 26% drop in insulin Navakatikian, 1994
120 µW/cm2 A pathological change in the blood brain barrier (915 MHz) Salford, 1993

RF Radiation Hazards

Studies by Increasing Specific Absorption Rate

SAR Reported Biological Effects References
0.000021 – .0021 W/Kg Changes in cell cycle and cell proliferation (960 MHz GSM cell phone signal) Kwee, 1997
0.0004 W/Kg Pulsed cell phone RF caused changes in blood-brain barrier that protects brain from outside harmful chemicals and toxins (915 MHz GSM cell phone) Salford, 1997
0.001 W/Kg EEG brain waves are altered when exposed to cell phone signal at 0.1 µW/cm2 Von KIitzing, 1995
0.0317 W/Kg Decrease in eating and drinking Ray & Behari, 1990
.005 to .05 W/Kg Calcium efflux Dutta et al, 1989
0.14 W/Kg Elevation of immune response at 100 µW/cm2 Elekes, 1996
0.13 – 1.4 W/Kg Lymphoma cancer rate is 2.4 times normal with two 1/2 hour exposures per day of cell phone exposure (pulsed digital mobile phone signal 900 MHz) Repacholi, 1997
0.26 W/Kg Harmful effects to the eyes/ certain drugs can sensitize eyes to RFR Kues, 1992
0.4 W/Kg Statistically significant increase in malignant tumors at 480 µW/cm2 Guy, 1984
0.58 – 0.75 W/Kg Biological effect on the development of brain tumors at 18% of standard (836 MHz TDMA digital cell phone signal) Adey, 1996
0.6 and 1.2 W/Kg DNA single and double strand breaks from RF exposure (2450 MHz) Lai, 1995
2.4 mW/Kg to 24 mW/Kg Digital cell phone (836 TDMA) at very low intensities cause DNA effects in human cells. DNA effects are direct DNA damage and the rate at which DNA is repaired. Is equal to about 800 µW/cm2 power density Phillips, 1998
2-3 W/Kg Cancer acceleration in skin and breast tumors at 50 – 75% of standard Szmigielski, 1982

RF Radiation Hazards

Standards and Background Levels

SAR Standards
0.2 W/Kg IEEE standard for whole body SAR for general public (1/6 of an hour) IEEE
1.6 W/Kg FCC (IEEE) SAR limit over 1 gram of tissue (cell phone to ear) FCC, 1996
Power Density Standards
579µW/cm2 800-900 MHz Cell Phone Signal Standard ANSI/IEEE
1000µW/cm2 PCS STANDARD for public exposure (as of September 1, 1997) FCC, 1996
5000µW/cm2 PCS STANDARD for occupational exposure (as of September 11997) FCC, 1996
Background Levels
0.003 µW/cm2 Ambient background RF exposure in cities and suburbs in the 1990’s Mantiply, 1997
1 – 10 µW/cm2 Ambient RF exposure within 100-200 feet of cell/PCS antenna array (or roughly 0.2 to 0.5 mW/Kg SAR in the human body’) Sage, 1998, unpublished

RF Radiation Hazards

Listing of Full Citations Referenced Above

Study Description
Adey, WR., et. al., 1996. Brain tumor incidence in rats chronically exposed to digital cellular telephone fields in an initiation-promotion model. Bioelectromagnetics Society 18th Annual Meeting, Proceedings, Abstract A-7-3.
Belokrinitskiy, VS., 1982. “Destructive and reparative processes in hippocampus with long-term exposure to nonionizing radiation.” In U.S.S.R. Report, Effects of Nonionizing Microwave Radiation, No. 7, JPRS 81865, pp. 15-20.
Chiang, H., et. al., 1989. Health effects of environmental electromagnetic fields. Journal of Bioelectricity, 8: 127-131
Chou, CK., & Guy, AW., 1992. Long-term low level microwave irradiation of rats. Bioelectormagnetics 13:469-496
D’Inzeo, G., et. al., 1988. Microwave effects on acetycholine-induced channels in cultured chick myotubes. Bioelectromagnetics 9; 363-372.
Dolk, H., et. al., 1997. Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in Great Britain. Am J Epidemiology 145(1) P 1-9 Jan 1997.
Dumanski, J.D., and Shandala, M.G., 1974 “The Biological Action and Hygenic Significance of Elecromagnetic Fields of Superhigh and Ultrahigh frequencies in Densely Populated Areas,” from Biological Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation. Proceedings of an International Symposium, Warsaw 15-18 October, 1973, Polish Medical Publishers, Warsaw, 1974.
Dutta, SK., et. al., 1989. Radiofrequency radiation-induced calcium ion efflux enhancement from human and other neuroblastoma cells in culture. Bioelectromagnetics 10: 197-202.
Elekes, E., 1996. Effect on the immune system of mice exposed chronically to 50 Hz amplitude-modulated 2.45 GHz microwaves. Bioelectromagnetics 17:246-8.
Hocking, B., et. al., 1996. Cancer incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers Med J Aust 165(11-12) P. 601-5 Dec 2-16, 1996.
Joyner, K., et. al., 1996. Mobile telephones interfere with medical electrical equipment. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 1994 Mar. 17(1). P 23-7.
Kolodynski, AA., Kolodynska VV, 1996. Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda radio location station in Latvia. Sci Total Environ 1996;180:87-93
Kues, HA., 1992. Increased sensitivity of the non-human primate eye to radiation following opthalmic drug pretreatment. Bioelectromagnetics 13:379-93.
Kwee, 1997 The biological effects of microwave radiation. Abstract in Proceedings of the Second World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine, Bologna, Italy, June 1997.
L. Salford (1993) “Experimental studies of brain tumor development during exposure to continuous and pulsed 915 MHz radio frequency radiation,” in Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, Vol. 30: pg. 313-318.
L. Von Klitzing “Low-Frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields influence EEG of man.” Physica Medica, Vol. 11, No. 2, pps 77-80, April-June 1995.
Lai, H., and Singh, NP., 1995. Acute low intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single strand breaks in rat brain cells, Bioelectromagnetics 1995;16:207-10.
Lai, H., & Singh, NP., 1996. Single and double strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 1996;69:513-21.
M.A. Navakatikian and L.A. Tomashevskaya “Phasic Behavioral and Endocrine Effects of Microwaves of Nonthermal Intensity,” by Carpenter DO and Ayrapetyan S, editors. Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields. Volume 1, published by Academic Press
Magras, IN., & Zenos, TD., 1997. RF Radiation-induced changes in the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics 18:455-461.
Mann, K., et. al., 1996. Effects of pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human sleep. Neuropsychobiology 1996;33:41-7.
Phillips, J., et. al., 1998. DNA damage in molt-4 lymphoblastoid cells exposed to cellular telephone radiofrequency fields in vitro. Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics 45:103-110.
Ray, S., & Behari, J., 1990. Physiological changes in rats after exposure to low levels of microwaves. Radiat Res 123: 190-202
Repacholi, M., et. al., 1997. Lymphomas in Eµ-Pim1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields. Radiat Res. 1997; 147:31-40.
Salford, 1997 Blood brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields from a GSM wireless communication transmitter. Abstract in Proceedings of the Second World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine, Bologna, Italy, June 1997.
Salford, LG., et. al., 1993. Permeability of the blood brain barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation;continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50 and 200 Hz. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 1993;30:293-301.
Szmigielski, S., et. al., 1982. Accelerated development of spontaneous and benzpyrene-induced skin cancer in mice exposed to 2350 MHz microwave radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 3: 179-192.
Szmigielski, S., et. al., 1982. Cancer morbidity in subjects occupationally exposed to high frequency (radiofrequency and microwave) electromagnetic radiation. Sci Total Environ 1996; 180:9-17
Veyret, B., et. al., 1991. “Antibody responses of mice exposed to low-power microwaves under combined, pulse and amplitude modulation,” Bioelectromagnetics 12: P 47-56.

Source/Fonte:

https://www.rfsafe.com/reported-health-effects-non-ionizing-rf-radiation/