L’inquinamento elettromagnetico e i danni alla salute
[Una nuova analisi di statistiche del Governo Britannico effettuata dai ricercatori della organizzazione di beneficenza “Children with Cancer UK” ha rilevato che il numero di giovani con diagnosi di cancro è aumentato del 40 per cento negli ultimi 16 anni, e senza dubbio fattori ambientali sono da ritenersi responsabili.
Tra questi, ci sono i Campi Elettromagnetici.]
3 September 2016 – “The Telegraph”/Science, by
Modern life is killing children with the number of youngsters diagnosed with cancer rising 40 per cent in the past 16 years because of air pollution, pesticides, poor diets and radiation, scientists have warned.
New analysis of government statistics by researchers at the charity Children with Cancer UK found that there are now 1,300 more cancer cases a year compared with 1998, the first time all data sets were published.
The rise is most apparent in teenagers and young adults aged between 15 and 24, where the incident rate has risen from around 10 cases in 100,000 to nearly 16.
Researchers say that although some of the rise can be explained by improvements in cancer diagnoses and more screening, the majority is probably caused by environmental factors.
Dr Denis Henshaw, Professor of Human Radiation Effects at Bristol University, the scientific adviser for Children with Cancer UK, said air pollution was by far the biggest culprit, accounting for around 40 per cent of the rise, but other elements of modern lifestyles are also to blame.
Among these are obesity, pesticides and solvents inhaled during pregnancy, circadian rhythm disruption through too much bright light at night, radiation from x-rays and CT scans, smoking during and after pregnancy, magnetic fields from power lines, gadgets in homes, and potentially, radiation from mobile phones.
“When you look at cancers such as childhood leukaemia there is no doubt that environmental factors are playing a big role,” said Dr Henshaw. “We were shocked to see the figures, and it’s modern lifestyle I’m afraid.
“Many items on the list of environmental causes are now known to be carcinogenic, such as air pollution and pesticides and solvents. There has been good research to suggest a mother’s diet can damage DNA in cord blood. Light at night we know is very disruptive for the body, which is why shift workers have such bad health.
“Burnt barbecues, the electric fields of power lines, the electricity supply in your home. Hairdryers. It’s all of these things coming together, and it seems to be teenagers and young people that are most affected.
“What’s worrying is it is very hard to avoid a lot of these things. How can you avoid air pollution? It sometimes feels like we are fighting a losing battle.”
More than 4,000 children and young people are diagnosed with cancer every year in Britain, and cancer is the leading cause of death in children aged one to 14.
Diagnoses of colon cancer among children and young people has risen 200 per cent since 1998, while thyroid cancer has doubled. Ovarian and cervical cancers have also risen by 70 per cent and 50 per cent respectively.
The charity estimates that the rise in cases now costs the NHS an extra £130 million a year compared with 16 years ago.
But experts believe many cancers could be prevented with lifestyle changes such as allowing children to attend nursery to boost their immune system, not painting children’s rooms with oil-based paints, avoiding night shift work and processed meats in pregnancy.
The figures were released ahead of the Children with Cancer UK conference which is taking place in London this week.
Other cancer experts said they had also noticed a rise in cancer diagnoses but warned it was too early to draw firm conclusions on the causes.
Nicola Smith, Cancer Research UK’s senior health information officer, said: “Any rise in childhood cancers is worrying but it’s important to remember that less than one per cent of cancer cases in the UK occur in children.
“It’s not yet clear exactly what causes cancer in childhood and research has not shown a link with environmental factors like air pollution and diet during pregnancy. There are some factors which can increase the risk of childhood cancer like inherited genetic conditions and exposure to radiation – but these are usually not avoidable and no one should feel blamed for a child getting cancer.
“Evidence has shown that there are lots of things adults can do to reduce cancer risk and it’s always a good idea to set up healthy habits as a family, like eating healthily, being active and enjoying the sun safely.”
Kate Lee, chief executive of children’s cancer charity CLIC Sargent, said that a child cancer diagnosis places a huge emotional and financial burden on the whole family.
“Over the last year CLIC Sargent provided support for more than 7,100 families, more than ever before, but we know that we can still only reach two out of three of those children and young people diagnosed with cancer,” she added.
“As more young cancer patients are diagnosed every year, we know each of those families will need support and are working hard to one day be able to provide those services for every young patient.”
Despite the increase, around 80 per cent of child cancer patients now survive for at least five years. But the aggressive treatments they have as children can have a major impact on their future health, even if they survive.
Tomorrow, Children with Cancer UK launches a five-point plan calling on the Government and the science and medical community to ensure that all children diagnosed with cancer in the UK have access to precision medicine by 2020.
[Articolo di carattere divulgativo che tocca i punti salienti della questione relativa alla pericolosità dei cellulari/smartphone:
1) EFFETTI TERMICI vs EFFETTI NON TERMICI e SAR:
si legge spesso di prestare attenzione alla SAR nell’acquisto di un cellulare, prediligendo cellulari con una SAR bassa; ma la SAR di per sè è priva di significato in quanto valuta solo gli EFFETTI TERMICI generati da un cellulare quando la sua radiazione penetra la testa — e noi facciamo notare che, in condizioni di laboratorio, la testa in questione è di PLASTICA — , mentre il vero problema sono gli EFFETTI NON TERMICI, i quali sono ad esempio conseguenza della frequenza usata nonché della sua modulazione, e di una miriade di altri fattori spesso trascurati, tra i quali c’è anche il campo magnetico generato dalla batteria dello smartphone;
2) Cellulare tenuto vicino alla testa:
la maggior parte della radiazione emessa dal cellulare (circa il 70%) viene assorbita dalla testa e i danni maggiori si verificano nei più piccoli (il cervello non è completamente sviluppato sino ai 20 anni);
3) Conflitto di interessi in ambito scientifico:
gli studi che negano la esistenza di effetti nocivi sono generalmente finanziati dall’industria e favoriscono l’industria;
4) Inserimento di Radiofrequenze/Microonde nella classe 2B di cancerogenicità da parte della I.A.R.C. nel 2011:
non è una cosa da poco, a quella stessa classe appartengono ad esempio certuni pesticidi, metalli pesanti e oli esausti — e noi ci teniamo a fornire una lista più precisa di alcuni di questi altri cancerogeni di classe 2B, che sono i seguenti:
– Agenti chemioterapici: Bleomicina, Dacarbazina, Daunorubicina, Mitoxantrone, Mitomicina C, …
– Cobalto e composti del cobalto
– 2,4 e 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
– Bitumi (diversi tipi), Gasolio, Scarichi del motore, Oli combustibili
– Erbicidi Clorofenossiderivati
– Zidovudina (AZT) — ;
5) Danni per esposizioni ben al di sotto dei limiti di legge:
esistono studi (oltre 20.000, dei quali circa 4.000 documentano EFFETTI NON TERMICI) che dimostrano chiaramente come i danni si verifichino per esposizioni ben al di sotto dei limiti di sicurezza — anche perché i limiti sono basati su criteri sbagliati, che tengono conto solo degli EFFETTI TERMICI — ;
6) Danno mitocondriale:
spesso trascurato, è in realtà un fattore cruciale, perché la esposizione alle Radiofrequenze/Microonde danneggia i mitocondri — i quali hanno un DNA che, se danneggiato, NON può più essere riparato! — e le conseguenze sono ridotta produzione di energia ed invecchiamento accelerato;
7) Nuovi sistemi di trasmissione:
ci sono prove che le nuove tecnologie di trasmissione (soprattutto il 4G) siano più pericolose per la salute;
8) Minimizzare l’impatto delle emissioni del cellulare:
vengono forniti consigli su come proteggersi nel miglior modo possibile — ma facciamo notare che in ogni caso l’uso risulta nocivo e quindi non esiste un uso veramente sicuro — .
11 August 2016 – “mermieoriginals.wordpress.com”, by
I don’t know if a comment I posted on a recent post of Dr. Mercola’s had anything to do with this new article or not (I’d expressed that I hoped he used a headset when he was using his mobile for calls and that he kept his phone in airplane mode when not in use )…but anyway he has nicely covered an important topic. Read on…
(PS. I created the cartoon after reading about how the ‘experts’ had said that eating sausages was bad for your health, lol.)
“Is Your Cell Phone Putting You at Risk?”
The war rages on about the safety of cell phones. Depending on which side of the argument you listen to, there’s either nothing to fear, or your phone is causing grave harm when it comes into close contact with your body. Where does the real truth lie?
The year 2014 marked the first time in history that there were officially more mobile devices than people in the world – approximately 7.2 billion.
Although significantly lower, the number of cell phone users is forecast to reach 4.77 billion by the year 2017.
That’s a lot of cell phones and cell phone users. But what’s even more fascinating about all these mobile devices is the behavior that surrounds them:
- Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults own a smartphone and over 250 million of them use their phones an average of six days a week
- The average cellphone owner checks their phone 110 times a day, or about nine times each hour
- A whopping 46 percent of smartphone owners say “they couldn’t live without” their phones
- As of December, 2015, 47 percent of homes used only cell phones
- More than about half of U.K. cell phone users suffer from “nomophobia,” or the fear of being without their phone (and the number may be even higher for American users)
Clearly, cell phones aren’t going away anytime soon. I use my smartphone every day, too. But how I use mine most likely differs from how the typical user uses theirs…
The Enigma of Cell Phone Safety
Most conventional experts don’t view cell phone exposure as a problem, mainly because they only look at one component of cell phone safety.
Their focus is on the thermal effects of cell phones and how your body absorbs the radiofrequency energy. The industry insists that because the energy of the fields is too low to cause heating of tissues, it can’t have any biological effect.
These thermal or tissue heating effects are measured and assigned a rating known as SAR, which stands for Specific Absorption Rate.
Industry suggests you compare SAR ratings, but the numbers are meaningless
When buying a wireless phone, the industry suggests you compare ratings and purchase one with a lower rating.
Please understand that the SAR rating by itself is virtually worthless.
The SAR level only estimates the heat from the radiation penetrating into your head from a cell phone – just ONE component of concern!
The SAR level does not measure the risk from the frequencies of the cell phone, the erratic pulsing and modulation of the signals, or the magnetic fields created by the batteries.
Scientists now know that many of the effects from cell phones arenon-thermal. In other words, they occur at levels too low to cause significant heating to tissues.
What You Need to Know About Cell Phone Radiation
The frequency of a cell phone’s waves falls between those emitted by FM radios and those from microwave ovens, all of which are considered “non-ionizing” forms of radiation.
When you make a call, text, or use data on your cell phone, here’s what happens:
Your phone sends radiofrequency, or RF waves from its antenna to nearby cell towers, and receives RF waves in return to its antenna.
If you are holding the phone next to your face, as most people do, then about 70 percent of the energy from the antenna is absorbed straight into your head.
As you can see from the diagram below, age makes a difference in how much of this energy can be absorbed into the tissue. A younger child’s skull is much thinner than an adult’s and still developing, therefore more radiation is able to penetrate the brain.
It’s not until around age 20 that your brain is fully developed.
These visual images should serve as a powerful reminder to parents that it’s never a good idea to allow a child to talk on a cell phone held close to the head!
As you move your cell phone away from your head, this radiation decreases rapidly. So, clearly, the further away from your body you can keep your phone, the better.
Incidentally, the manufacturer of one of the top-selling cell phones advises against direct body contact with their phones. This is what they say right on their website:
“To reduce exposure to RF energy, use a hands-free option, such as the built-in speakerphone, the supplied headphones, or other similar accessories. Carry phone at least 5mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the as-tested levels.”
One of the most important bits of advice I can give you is to avoid holding your phone directly against your head, especially while your call connects—which is when the power surge is greatest.
Using your speakerphone function or a safe headset to keep your phone a safe distance away from your body is a much better option.
But Why Does the Wireless Industry Still Insist Cell Phones Are Safe?
You can search online and find study after study that says cell phone usage is safe. The wireless industry claims that thousands of studies have failed to pinpoint adverse effects.
But, is that really true?
First you need to dig deep and find out who funded the study. If it’s an industry-funded study, the results presented are just about guaranteed to favor the industry. Why would they publish results that didn’t?
But just because countless studies might conclude “no risk found,” it doesn’t mean those were the real scientific findings of the investigation!
The earlier one starts using cell phones, the more harmful its potential effects can be
Dr. Henry Lai, a University of Washington scientist in cellular and molecular engineering, reviewed 85 papers on the DNA-damaging effects of cell phone radiation. He and his colleague had found from their own research that cell phone radiation could cause DNA damage in brain cells.
What did he find when he took a closer look at these studies?
A whopping three-fourths of the papers that showed no toxic effects were funded either by the wireless industry or the military. Eighty percent of those that showed potential negative effects were not linked to the industry.
Even Time reported:
Independent studies on cell phone radiation found dangers at more than twice the rate of industry-funded studies.
We’re talking about a very lucrative industry here… The total revenue of the U.S. mobile wireless industry is over $171 billion!
Could it be that the wireless industry may be twisting science just enough to dodge or at least postpone regulation? They do have a lot at stake…
The 2011 Ruling That Delivered a Major Blow to the Wireless Industry
As cell phone usage around the world expands, evidence continues to mount against their safety, even though the industry still insists cell phones are safe.
Possibly the biggest blow to the industry came in 2011 when the International Agency for research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared cell phones a Class B carcinogen.
This classification puts cell phones squarely in the same category of certain pesticides and heavy metals as well as engine exhaust.
But that’s not all… There are now more than 20,000 publications in the scientific literature that show significant biological effects at exposures well within safety standards, including about 4,000 that include non-thermal effects.
How Cell Phones Impact Your Cells’ Energy Centers – Your Mitochondria
Cell phones have been shown to harm your cells’ mitochondria
Your body uses electrical fields to communicate between your cells. The electromagnetic fields emitted by the phones are far more damaging to your body because they interfere with your body’s own cellular communication.
Another major way cell phones can potentially impact you is through their effect on your mitochondria within your cells.
Most of your cells have several hundred mitochondria. Over 90% of the energy that your body needs to function properly comes from the mitochondria, so their well-being is essential to your energy production.
Not only are they your body’s primary source of energy, your cells’ mitochondria determine the speed at which your body ages. If your mitochondria are working optimally, your body ages at a normal rate.
Researchers have discovered that the radiation from cell phones can harm your mitochondria, including flipping certain genes within the mitochondria.
As important as your mitochondria are to your health, this potential damaging effect on genes is very concerning to me.
Is the Newest Technology Any Safer?
Industry tries to assure us that third and fourth generation cell phones are safer in terms of non-ionizing radiation.
But are they really?
There’s no proof that 3G or 4G is any safer, and if anything, the preliminary research suggests they may be even less safe.
Here’s the problem…
Today’s standards for radiofrequency emissions weren’t designed for cell phones.
Rather, the current federal standards were developed to guard against thermal effects, but remember, as I explained above, that’s not the issue. As we’ve already seen, most of the studies on cell phones show non-thermal effects.
What’s worrisome now is that evidence is suggesting exposure to cell phone radiation can have biological effects without raising temperature.
Radio frequency waves from cell phones have also been shown to produce “stress” proteins in human cells, proteins that the body produces for self-protection.
I agree that getting rid of your cell phone is probably not an option these days. Today’s cell phones are much more than phones – they’re often your camera, video recorder, hand-held computer, and your lifeline to staying in touch with your work and family.
But with all this distressing data and questionable research, there must be something we can do to help minimize exposure. I believe there is…
How to Minimize Cell Phone Radiation Emissions
Not only is direct cell phone contact dangerous, using one while you drive is like driving impaired
So what can you do to make cell phone usage safer for yourself and your family?
First and foremost, I recommend you consider not allowing your child or pre-teen to have a cell phone.
For teens, I encourage you to educate them on the dangers of holding or storing a cell phone close to their bodies and to remind them to use a safe headset if they need to make a call.
And, no one should ever use one while driving, including texting.
Here are some additional suggestions for minimizing your exposure to cell phone radiation:
- Reduce your cell phone usage. Turn your phone off when you don’t need it.
- Use your cell phone on speakerphone whenever possible.Avoiding contact with your head is the most important safeguard you can take.
- Keep your phone as far away from your body as possible.There’s a significant drop-off in radiation exposure for every inch your phone is away from your body. Don’t stow your cell phone in your pocket!
- Don’t place your phone against your head while the call is connecting. This is when your phone is sending out its strongest signal and you don’t want this surge of radiation penetrating your head!
- Use a landline at home and at work. Just because everyone else goes cordless, you don’t need to.
- Avoid using your cell phone if reception is poor. The weaker the reception, the more power your phone uses to transmit, and the more exposure you receive.
- Limit cell phone use in your car. The metal parts of your car – the roof, doors, and chassis can magnify the radiation. Plus your phone has to work harder and increase its transmitting strength as you travel between cell towers.
- If you must make a call unprotected, limit it to less than two minutes. Radiation exposure is dose-related. The longer you spend on your phone, the more potentially harmful microwave radiation you’re exposed to.
- Use low power Bluetooth® technology or a headset to keep your phone away from your body. But just remember that if you use your Bluetooth® or headset a lot, you are still exposed to radiation right near your head.
- For the ultimate in safety, use an air tube headset that’s specially designed to reduce cell phone radiation. In just a minute, I’ll tell you about the one I use.
Why I’ll Only Use a Headset That’s Specially Designed to Reduce Radiation
Before I carefully studied this issue, I used my cell phone regularly and thought my off-the-shelf headset protected me from my phone’s emissions.
However, I soon discovered that:
- Cell phones emit a radiation plume.
- Most cell phone headsets have a wire that can act like an antenna and magnify the radiation emissions.
- The wireless industry – and the government – is suppressing a great deal of scientific data to protect multi-billion dollar profits.
And then I saw this alarming evidence… Through the use of thermographic imaging, scientists can see the changes take place inside your brain when you use a cell phone directly against your head.
Instead of seeing “cool” blues and greens that are present in your brain when you’re not exposed to cell phone radiation, scientists saw reds, yellows and oranges which graphically display internal heating of your tissues and cells after only 15 minutes of cell phone use.
Until recently, scientists believed that these changes and cell phone-related interference with brain waves and brain chemistry ended when the call ended. Now they know it can last for up to an hour.
Today I refuse to talk on any cell phone unless I am using a speakerphone or headset designed to reduce radiation. I simply refuse to ever put the phone next to my head.
The Evolution of My Blue Tube Headset
For at least the last 15 years, I’ve been convinced that cell phone radiation is a real concern for all of us. That’s why I first introduced the RF3 Headset to help you minimize your radiation exposure.
The comparison below shows the difference between traditional headsets and my Blue Tube Headset with advanced Aircom 2 technology. With the Blue Tube, you avoid the radiation common with traditional headset antennas.
|Conventional Headsets use wire to deliver sound to the earpiece and may also emit electromagnetic radiation.|
|The Blue Tube advanced Aircom 2 technology delivers the clearest sound achievable through an air-filled wireless tube that reduces the emission of radiation.|
As popular as my original Blue Tube Headset was (and many are still out there in use!), I realized it could be improved upon and made even more convenient to use.
I asked my team to work on developing:
- A well-designed earpiece – My old one occasionally came loose and I had to glue it back in place.
- A cord that wouldn’t tangle – There’s nothing more annoying than a cord that you must unknot every time you want to use it!
- A comfortable ear hook design – The first generation ear hook configuration was a bit frustrating and sometimes difficult to adjust.
- Fuller, clearer sound – The early model didn’t offer stereo sound.
I’m proud to say my team came through with flying colors and upgraded the Blue Tube Headset – an improved RF3 with enhanced Aircom™ 2 technology.
The New and Improved Cell Phone Accessory to Help Reduce Harmful Emissions
It’s a simple concept: the further away your phone is from your head and body, the better.
Love & light and a big thank you to Dr. Mercola, not just for sharing valuable information but for using his resources to create a solution…obviously the best solution would be not to use this technology, lol, but that’s not going to happen any time soon. And don’t forget it’s not just mobile phones and cell towers which emit EMF radiation; DECT (wireless handset) phones and wifi emit ENORMOUS levels of radiation!
Stay safe. Stay healthy.
Louise (aka Mermie)
[L’agenzia Nazionale Francese per la Salute (Anses – Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail) ha recentemente pubblicato un rapporto chiarissimo sui rischi derivanti dalla esposizione ai Campi Elettromagnetici e dall’uso delle tecnologie Wireless (senza fili) soprattutto per i bambini, sottolineando dunque la necessità di proteggerli limitando la loro esposizione e dissuadendoli dall’usare cellulari, tablet e altri dispositivi Wireless.]
Electrosensibles de France – Membre et référent de l’Association nationale P.R.I.A.R.T.EM
Correspondance : P.R.I.A.R.T.EM – Collectif des Electrosensibles de France; 5, Cour de la Ferme Saint-Lazare ; 75010 Paris
Email : Cliquez – Tél : 01 42 47 81 54
www.electrosensible.org – www.priartem.fr.
Communiqué de presse du 8 juillet 2016
Rapport de l’ANSES sur l’exposition aux radiofréquences et santé des enfants : il faut mieux protéger les enfants
A l’issue d’un long travail d’expertise l’Agence conclut qu’il faut mieux protéger les enfants des rayonnements de toutes les technologies sans fil ainsi que des effets liés à l’usage des outils numériques sans fil.
Pour l’ANSES, mieux protéger les enfants signifie :
– Limiter l’exposition des enfants aux champs électromagnétiques ;
– Dissuader l’usage par les enfants de l’ensemble des dispositifs de communication mobile.
L’ANSES met en évidence l’inadéquation des normes réglementaires actuelles pour satisfaire à cette nécessaire protection et elle propose ainsi de reconsidérer les valeurs limites d’exposition réglementaires et les indicateurs d’exposition dont le DAS (débit d’absorption spécifique).
Priartem considère que ces recommandations vont dans le bon sens ; que l’Agence a pris ses responsabilités d’Agence sanitaire en les formulant et qu’il reste maintenant aux autorités politiques à les mettre en œuvre le plus rapidement possible.
En ce sens Priartem va s’appuyer sur ces conclusions pour demander une réévaluation du processus normatif et surtout des mesures concrètes de protection des enfants. L’association va ainsi saisir à nouveau le ministère de l’Education Nationale pour un arrêt du plan numérique à l’école. En effet, tel qu’il est aujourd’hui lancé, ce plan se traduit par un déploiement massif de tablettes en WiFi dans les classes y compris dans les maternelles.
Priartem rappelle que partout où c’est possible les connexions filaires doivent être privilégiées, les appareils « sans fil » devant être réservés aux situations de mobilité.
Plus que jamais nous devons demander un grand débat public sur le développement numérique dont nous avons besoin au lieu de nous laisser imposer de plus en plus de gadgets connectés. Ceci est d’autant plus crucial que la jeune génération est celle qui aura été la plus exposée et ce, dès le plus jeune âge. Nous ne pouvons pas nous permettre d’avoir des regrets dans 20 ans, il sera trop tard.
Please also see/Vedere anche:
12 luglio 2016 – “www.casalenews.it”
Interessanti spunti di riflessione nella serata organizzata da Mammeincerchio, L’Albero di Valentina e Passi di vita
Chi era presente venerdì scorso all’Auditorium Santa Chiara per l’incontro su “Wifi, cellulari & co” ha capito che ‘indossare’ un telefonino (perché tale è l’intimità raggiunta con questo strumento di comunicazione) può provocare danni alla salute, anche se il mondo scientifico non lo ha ancora dimostrato.
Nell’incontro organizzato da Mamme in cerchio, Albero di Valentina e Passi di vita Onlus, avente per oggetto proprio l’informazione sui rischi provocati dalla prolungata esposizione a onde elettromagnetiche, autorevoli esperti si sono espressi e confrontati sull’entità e sulla peculiarità delle conseguenze di tale esposizione.
Ha aperto la serata l’epidemiologo Corrado Magnani, che ha richiamato i risultati degli studi scientifici ufficiali, per i quali non ci sono evidenze di una pericolosità delle onde elettromagnetiche ai livelli di esposizione attualmente consentiti, benché le correlazioni con gravi malattie siano in fase di approfondimento.
Terminato il suo intervento, si è voltata pagina: il dottor Orio, vice-presidente dell’Associazione Elettrosensibili, ha riconosciuto i risultati divulgati dalla ricerca scientifica, ma ha dato conto di evidenze medico-sanitarie rilevanti: a fronte della diffusione rapidissima di cellulari e tecnologie wi-fi, i danni al sistema neurologico di bambini e adulti sono aumentati, e con loro disturbi all’apparato riproduttivo maschile.
Eloquenti le immagini mostrate: le parti a contatto con il telefonino subiscono l’aggressione di onde elettromagnetiche in una forma inedita fino ad oggi.
Sono poi emersi altri aspetti – oggetto di studi indipendenti – che rafforzano l’idea di dover essere prudenti quando ci affidiamo alla connessione wireless, perché, come il professor Magnani ha suggerito, si tratta di una tecnologia entrata nelle nostre case prima di averne sperimentato e ‘pesato’ gli effetti.
Effetti nefasti, li conoscono bene gli elettrosensibili: persone che – con intensità diverse – registrano l’impossibilità di maneggiare apparecchi come cellulari, computer, microonde.
Alcuni erano presenti all’incontro e hanno portato testimonianze toccanti. È verosimile aspettarsi un aumento di elettrosensibili, e ci si augura che la tecnologia migliori la schermatura degli apparecchi e che la vocazione per il wi-fi venga soppiantata da sistemi più inequivocabilmente sicuri per la salute.
Una serie di consigli dispensati dal professor Sergio Crippa ha, a questo proposito, semplificato la materia: accorgimenti casalinghi praticabili e utili.
Il materiale raccolto dalle associazioni promotrici, che hanno avuto il sostegno e il patrocinio del Comune di Casale e dell’Ordine dei Farmacisti di Alessandria, per la serietà con cui è stata impostata la serata e per la capacità di coinvolgere personalità di prim’ordine, è a disposizione di chi volesse approfondire il tema e per chi – in attesa di evidenze scientifiche (per le quali occorre tempo, quale che sia l’esito) – volesse divulgare l’invito alla prudenza nell’utilizzo del wi-fi. Internet e cellulari si’, ma non a discapito della salute.
Associazioni Mamme in Cerchio – L’Albero di Valentina – Passi di vita onlus
19th June 2016 – “blog.oup.com”, by Devra Davis
Have you heard that cell phones cause cancer, then they don’t, then they do? Confused enough yet? Let me break it down for you. Contrary to some claims, the new US government study by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is hardly a shot in the dark or a one-off event. With this largest best-conducted animal study, we now have three different studies within the past six years where animals develop some of the same cancers from cell phone radiation as people. In the NTP study, male rats exposed to wireless radiation develop more unusual highly malignant brain tumors—gliomas—as well as very rare tumors of the nerves around and within the heart—schwannomas.
Rodent studies are the gold standard for testing chemicals. In fact, as the American Cancer Society notes, the NTP study comes from a world-renowned test program that involved twice the usual number of animals and triple the typical number of independent reviews of the pathology data. The NTP review process included blinded evaluations by statisticians and pathologists who did not even know the name of the ‘test agent’ they were examining.
An op-ed from the New York Times by pediatrician Aaron Carroll questions the relevance of these animal studies for humans. Chairman of Pediatrics at Hadassah Hospital Jerusalem, Dr. Eitan Kerem, does not agree, stating that “Such findings [of cancers in a test drug] in the pharma industry may prevent further developing of a drug until safety is proven, and until the findings of this study are confirmed parents should be aware of the potential hazards of carcinogenic potential of radiofrequency radiation.”
Prof. Eitan appreciates that every agent known to cause cancer in people, also produces it in animals when well studied. More recently, studies have found significant brain changes in cell-phone exposed Zebra fish which also share important properties with humans. If we fail to heed these studies and insist on more human data, we become the bodies of evidence.
Not a single one of the NTP rat controls developed these rare brain cancers or schwannomas of the heart. Yes it is true that historical controls used in other studies have had a few brain cancers, so why should we not compare these results with that? In scientific research, we take great care to subject controls and exposed animals to the same housing, light, food, water supply, cage rotation, etc. This NTP study placed all animals in a complex reverberation chamber that existed within a metal barrier that blocked all forms of electromagnetic radiation from entering—a Farraday cage. Thus it is entirely plausible that electromagnetic exposures from wiring, ceiling fans, HVAC, or even technicians with phones in their pockets, could have affected control animals in those older studies causing this rare brain tumor and the handful of schwannomas of the heart found in the past in other controls. The fact that not a single one of the controls in this study developed these rare tumors tells us a great deal.
Why then, did brain tumors occur only in male rats? The sexes differ not only in hormones but in the ways that their DNA deals with poisons. In fact, rare precancerous abnormalities in the brain and heart were also reported in both sexes in the NTP study. For many cancer-causing agents, tumors are more common in males than in females—although in this instance, both males and females had significantly more cardiac abnormalities, pre-cancerous lesions, and malignant nerve tumors within and around their hearts.
Wait a minute. Some have claimed that these results are not a true positive, but a false one, that is to say—a false finding that wireless radiation increases cancer. By design, this study had a 97% chance of finding a true positive. Using a relatively small number of animals to study a very rare outcome, this study in fact, had a far greater chance of a falsely negative finding than of a falsely positive result.
Why then does the public know so little about the how cell phones and wireless technology impact our health? In 1994, findings that such radiation could prove a risk spawned an unusual and little-known sport—that of “war-games”—outlined in a memo from Motorola to their PR firm. That year when University of Washington scientists, Henry Lai and V.J. Singh, first showed that radiofrequency radiation (RFR) damaged brain cells in rats, they were subject to well-funded coordinated efforts to discredit their findings, their livelihood, and their integrity. Their university was asked to fire them and the journal editor where their work had been accepted was pressured to un-accept it. Similar disinformation efforts confronted the REFLEX project in 2004—a $15 million European Union multi-lab effort—after it also determined that cellphone radiation caused biological impacts on the brain.
Another paper from the NTP finding genotoxic impacts of wireless radiation is under peer-review at this time. The capacity of this radiation to open membranes is so well established that a number of technologies have been FDA approved to treat cancer relying on electroceuticals that use electromagnetic radiation at various powers, waveforms, and frequencies.
If ever there was a time to re-think our growing dependence on wireless in schools, cars, homes, and energy production, this is it. There is no other suspected cancer-causing agent to which we subject our elementary school students or place directly in front of the brain and eyes with virtual reality. It makes no sense to continue building out huge wireless systems until we have done a better job of putting the pieces of this puzzle together. This latest report from the NTP should give us all pause.
Belgium has banned cell phones for children. Over a dozen countries are curtailing wireless radiation especially for children. Reducing exposures will increase battery life, decrease demand for energy, and lower health risks. Concerted steps to reduce wireless radiation such as those recommended by the Israeli National Center for Non-Ionizing Radiation, France, the Indian Ministry of Health, and the Belgian government are in order now.
Governments have a moral obligation to protect citizens against risks that cannot otherwise be controlled. The epidemics of lung cancer today are evidence we waited far too long to control tobacco. To insist on proof of human harm now before taking steps to prevent future damage places all of us into an experiment without our consent, violating the Nuremberg Code.
Featured image credit: Cell phone in hands by Karolina Grabowska.STAFFAGE. CC0 public domain via Pexels.
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
Associazione Italiana Elettrosensibili
[Per maggiori dettagli, vedere la locandina qui sotto.
Cliccare sulla immagine per ingrandirla.]
Una presentazione della serata su “Il Monferrato”, di Marco Bertoncini.
[Cliccare sulla immagine per ingrandirla.]
22 June 2016 – “Omega News”
From : Stop Smart Meters! UK
Stop Smart Meters! UK
Informant: André Fauteux
This US Navy report from 1972 documents the connection of 122 bioeffects to microwaves. Dr. Zorach Glaser, PhD of the US Navy presented a research report covering more than 2,200 studies, which link weak wireless signals (microwave radiation) to more than 122 biological effects. “Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (Effects) and Clinical Manifestations attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation.”
Questo rapporto della Marina degli Stati Uniti del 1972 documenta il nesso tra 122 bioeffetti e le microonde.
Il Dr. Zorach Glaser, PhD della Marina degli Stati Uniti ha presentato un rapporto di ricerca che copre più di 2.200 studi, i quali collegano i segnali wireless deboli (radiazione a microonde) a più di 122 effetti biologici.
“Bibliografia dei Fenomeni Biologici Riferiti (Effetti) e delle Manifestazioni Cliniche attribuiti alla Radiazione in Microonde e Radiofrequenza.”
Click on the picture below to access the PDF file of the research report/Cliccare sulla immagine sottostate per accedere al file PDF del rapporto: