Bohemian article: 5G devices and towers threaten human, bee, & other forms of life

[Shepherd]

The front page of the current (Sept. 11-17) Bohemian has two long articles on the damage of the towers required for the "fifth generation of wireless cellular technology." The most thorough of the articles is by Stephanie Hiller, and also recently appeared in the Sonoma County Gazette. Critics challenge 5G "as a bath of invisible, cancer-causing radio waves penetrating soft human tissues." Fortunately, the Sebastopol-based EMF Safety Network, founded by Sebastopol artist Sandi Maurer has been challenging "Big Telecom."

The requested towers would "disrupt the flight patterns of bees and birds, and could also disrupt aircraft navigation" and "interfere with weather forecasting." Wireless users must deal with "radiation exposure...headaches, fatigue, anxiety, insomnia and brain cancer." The towers would "generate noise, cause negative health consequences or create safe concerns."

[Fortunecookie]

Does anyone have any information on the EMF conference in Santa Cruz last weekend ?
I wanted to go but it was too expensive for me to attend. Thanks!

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

I read the article... found it absolutely horrible...seemed more like something from WND. Any article that has someone claiming bad health effects that were miraculously cured whenever the power breaker was shut off- without a shred of evidence or even scientific basics...

As to effects on weather forecasting- there is some (minor) legitimate concern there in terms of similar bandwidths being used. Planes not so much.

As to birds and bees- this is a claim that goes back to every previous iteration of cellular (and wi-fi, and smart meters, and.... ) ...without any peer reviewed scientific evidence backing it.

Yes- many love to point to some European studies linking EMF radiation of various sorts as "probable carcinogens". Sadly- it's like prop 65 in CA. Everything has become a "probable carcinogen" because guess what- every thing is. Damn near anything will harm or kill you in excess. But the vast majority of these are far less harmful then that big yellow ball of gas in our sky. Or the myriad of things naturally occurring in our soil, air, and water.

I can find no peer reviewed science that science that suggests that EMF/WI-FI/1g/2g/3/g4g/5g Cellular, Electrical wiring etc provided *any* real health risk under normal exposure circumstances.

Anyone care to provide peer reviewed studies to the contrary?

to be clear- I have seen some very limited studies re: 5g that do make me want to see further study- but I have seen nothing to support the baseless claims in the Bohemian article. And I am tired of people who so gleefully bash the right on denial of science on Climate change and other issues while they back claims in defiance of science on everything from EMF to vaccines to....

[Barry]

Sleeper Cells
North Bay activists warn of serious health impacts associated with 5G devices
BY STEPHANIE HILLER - Sept 11, 2019

The radio antennas poised to spring up on poles around the North Bay may look innocuous, but are they really?

Opponents of the technology believe
5G can mess with your DNA—or worse.

A debate over the fifth generation of wireless cellular technology—known as 5G—ensues while deployment begins across the region. As residents and elected officials ask questions about the potential health impacts the wireless transmitter proliferation brings with it, some localities debate bans on the new hardware.

However, recent FCC rulings designed to ease the way for 5G (under the rubric of National Security) give municipal governments little ability to restrict the new–and–controversial additions to the physical landscape.

At issue are the small devices affixed to light poles or other vertical spots surrounding homes, offices and public spaces. Champions stress the benefits a speedier backbone for data–enabled objects will bring (See News, page 8). Everything from color–shifting light bulbs and eco–friendly thermostats to card swipers used by yoga instructors and dog walkers will perform with less digital lag time. Critics decry small–cell ubiquity as a bath of invisible, cancer–causing radio waves penetrating soft human tissues—and decry the absence of local control over the 5G juggernaut now afoot.

Resistance to the small–cell rollout is growing. In early 2018, Santa Rosa was forced to walk back a 2017 agreement that would have allowed Verizon to improve its network by installing 72 antennas on wooden power poles and streetlights around the city. City councils in San Anselmo, Mill Valley, Ross, San Rafael, Petaluma, Sebastopol and the City of Sonoma all tried to get in front of the issue with ordinances limiting where the devices could be placed.

Last September the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted new regulations to remove barriers to 5G deployment, exempting installation from environmental review, a move that prompted the backlash. The city of Fairfax and the County of Marin joined more than 25 West Coast cities in legal actions to challenge the FCC's preemption. The court challenges bore some fruit. Last month, Oklahoma's United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians won an order overruling the FCC's attempt to prevent local environmental and historical reviews.

Members of the Sebastopol–based EMF Safety Network, founded by Sebastopol artist Sandi Maurer, recently marched through downtown San Rafael to bring visibility to the issue. There's a robust and regional grassroots letter–writing campaign to put the kibosh on 5G, and numerous local governments have weighed in with hearings and ordinances pegged at the health concerns. The drive by "Big Telecom" to expand its wireless data capacity is not going as smoothly as it may have hoped in the communities north of the Golden Gate.

5G is quite different than the generations that preceded it. It uses a different type of microwave, with a much higher frequency that enables faster transmission of information and optimizes new autonomous gadgets that talk to one another.

Continues here

[Barry]

I read the article... found it absolutely horrible...seemed more like something from WND. Any article that has someone claiming bad health effects that were miraculously cured whenever the power breaker was shut off- without a shred of evidence or even scientific basics... ...

I had a friend who had similar complaints whenever exposed to EMF. So we did a blind test: I would either turn off the power or pretend turn off the power and asked her how her symptoms were. She failed completely, even worse then 50% odd of being right just by accident!

[Dogenzip]

Does anyone have any information on the EMF conference in Santa Cruz last weekend ?

I have a flash drive with many of the presentations which I could loan you.
RSVP

[Dogenzip]

There have been hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific articles describing the adverse health impacts of wireless technology / microwave radiation. An annotated list of references to this research can be found at the link below:

Peer Reviewed Scientific Research On Wireless Radiation

The following websites are also worth reviewing to get informed about the serious threat to our health and property values posed by the enhanced 4G and 5G (5th generation) cellphone technology.

Physicians for Safe Technology:
https://mdsafetech.org

http://mystreetmychoice.com

https://scientists4wiredtech.com

[phredo]

Besides sharing doubts about the safety and, even besides safety, general desirability of 5G, I was peeved with the gratuitous Russia bashing of the article, even extending into the title. I've been closely following the RT feed for 5 years or so, and I can't remember seeing an article dissing 5G. In fact, since Russia tends to support all things Chinese, they have done frequent articles supporting Huawei's interest in exporting 5G technology to international markets, which gives a certain sense of approval for the technology itself. I don't really think RT spends much energy on trying to get Americans to fight each other; maybe just a little. They did run a lot of negative Hillary stories during the last election season, but, then, the Russians have a whole lot of reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton.

There are reasons why some people might dislike RT, in particular, I would guess, RT's preference for what they would call "right wing" positions, which they think of as support for "traditional Western values", such as Christianity and male-female marriage. I, too, often find that annoying, but since I otherwise hear a lot of Amy Goodman, other KPFA shows, NPR, watch Bill Maher and live in the West County, I like to hear the "other side" sometimes, which is why I also monitor Breitbart. And their coverage of international, especially European, news is much more comprehensive than I get from my US news sources. (I use the RT app on my android phone.) They also devote a lot of space to articles about sports, especially soccer and obscure (to me) contact "sports" that seem to involve a lot of kicking and eye gouging, but I just scroll past those.

In any case, I think the Russia bashing was un-factual and shouldn't have been part of the article.

[Karl Frederick]

It's an interesting example, Barry, though in a well designed test, failing completely would be just as unlikely as succeeding all the time. If there were enough trials, a significant deviation from the 50 percent success rate would indicate something was going on . . . but what?

I had a friend who had similar complaints whenever exposed to EMF. So we did a blind test: I would either turn off the power or pretend turn off the power and asked her how her symptoms were. She failed completely, even worse then 50% odd of being right just by accident!

[Dogenzip]

I had a friend who had similar complaints whenever exposed to EMF. So we did a blind test: I would either turn off the power or pretend turn off the power and asked her how her symptoms were. She failed completely, even worse then 50% odd of being right just by accident!

This test described above is invalid because the effects of EMF (electric magnetic fields) and RF (radio frequency) radiation are cumulative. Many people may not be sensitive now, but continued exposure to EMF/RF over time is cumulative and then a tipping point is reached when the adverse health impacts begin to show up. See the work of Dr. Martin Pall

[Sasu]

Here's a link to today's "Full Measure" with Sharyl Attkisson covering 5G with guest Dr.Martin Pall. Full transcript is also available at link. About 9 minutes. 5g Whiz

[Sasu]

Barry, here's a peer-reviewed published study:

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: evidence for a novel neurological syndrome.

McCarty DE1, Carrubba S, Chesson AL, Frilot C, Gonzalez-Toledo E, Marino AA.

1

Department of Neurology, LSU Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana 71130-3932, USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought direct evidence that acute exposure to environmental-strength electromagnetic fields (EMFs) could induce somatic reactions (EMF hypersensitivity).

METHODS: The subject, a female physician self-diagnosed with EMF hypersensitivity, was exposed to an average (over the head) 60-Hz electric field of 300 V/m (comparable with typical environmental-strength EMFs) during controlled provocation and behavioral studies.

RESULTS: In a double-blinded EMF provocation procedure specifically designed to minimize unintentional sensory cues, the subject developed temporal pain, headache, muscle twitching, and skipped heartbeats within 100 s after initiation of EMF exposure (p < .05). The symptoms were caused primarily by field transitions (off-on, on-off) rather than the presence of the field, as assessed by comparing the frequency and severity of the effects of pulsed and continuous fields in relation to sham exposure. The subject had no conscious perception of the field as judged by her inability to report its presence more often than in the sham control.

DISCUSSION: The subject demonstrated statistically reliable somatic reactions in response to exposure to subliminal EMFs under conditions that reasonably excluded a causative role for psychological processes.

CONCLUSION: EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally inducible neurological syndrome.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793784

I had a friend who had similar complaints whenever exposed to EMF. So we did a blind test: I would either turn off the power or pretend turn off the power and asked her how her symptoms were. She failed completely, even worse then 50% odd of being right just by accident!

[podfish]

I had a friend who had similar complaints whenever exposed to EMF. So we did a blind test: I would either turn off the power or pretend turn off the power and asked her how her symptoms were. She failed completely, even worse then 50% odd of being right just by accident!

And how did she respond to the experiment?

[Barry]

This test described above is invalid because the effects of EMF (electric magnetic fields) and RF (radio frequency) radiation are cumulative....

Perhaps...
And how is it that they can determine any ill effects from cumulative EMF exposure is solely due to the EMF exposure and not the countless other evil energies out there such as... gasp... gluten!

I posted my test because in the Bohemian article Sandi was quoted as saying she could send the lack of EMF immediately:

EMF Safety Network director Sandi Maurer says she began experiencing EHS symptoms in 2006. Finding no explanation for her discomfort, she called on Michael Neuwert, a local electrician who started researching the health effects of electromagnetism exposure in the 1980s. He came to her house to examine the wiring. "When he shut off the breakers, I immediately began to feel better."

[Barry]

And how did she respond to the experiment?

She was complaining that wifi (the previous EMF boogyman before 5G) was giving her headaches and that she would feel better immediately after she got out of the wifi stopped. So I powered on and off the router (without her knowing what the current state was). She said she felt better more often when the router was on than when it was off.

[podfish]

...She said she felt better more often when the router was on than when it was off.

I meant long-term. Did she abandon the view that she's EMF sensitive, or dismiss the experiment, or?

[arthunter]

I've been watching this argument about 5g, wifi, etc.for a long time. I have hesitated to jump in because of the discrediting labeling that I see on this forum when people disagree. Occasionally, my concern for the community overrides my distaste for this reality and this is one of those times.

I also have a friend with EMF hypersensitivity
She's 73 years old and suffers greatly
Her doctor, determined to get to the bottom of this, did some testing and determined that she had damage to the myelin shield which surrounds and protects our nerves.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25205214/

So please folks, don't be so quick to dismiss these reports. We are in a new world which is absolutely bathed in frequencies and we've never been here before. Keep an open mind.

Regarding 5g . It's now been banned in several cities in California and Europe. Why? Are these people all just "conspiracy theorists" who are afraid of military frequencies being broadcast in our neighborhood? I'll let you decide.

What I do know, thanks to 8 years of research, is that frequencies can affect the human brain and behavior. Would anyone in power actually take advantage of this?

Please watch this and decide for yourself..

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=tAPI6mv2O-U

[Barry]

I meant long-term. Did she abandon the view that she's EMF sensitive, or dismiss the experiment, or?

Sorry, I don't remember.

[podfish]

Sorry, I don't remember.

because my suspicion is that once a believer, always a believer. So I was curious as to whether I would be proven wrong.

[caromia333]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0NEaPTu9oI

A Silicon-valley engineer turned technology health advocate, Jeromy Johnson discusses our attachment to technology and the health hazards such an addiction may hold. Jeromy Johnson is an expert in mitigating the negative impacts of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) exposure. He has a leading website on the topic and consults with individuals, families and organizations around the world to implement solutions that reduce and eliminate EMF pollution. Jeromy has an advanced degree in Civil Engineering and has worked in Silicon Valley for 15 years. After becoming what medical doctors call “Electro-hypersensitive” (EHS) in 2011 after extensive exposure to EMF radiation, he embarked on a journey of regaining his own health and educating others to critically evaluate theirs. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx


Category

Nonprofits & Activism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0NEaPTu9oI

[caromia333]

World Health Organization on non-iodizing radiation from wifi and cell phone technology.

https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publicat...acts/fs304/en/

[caromia333]

Video recording of the public event: "Health Risk From Exposure To Wireless Network Devices?" organized on Wednesday 24 October on Monte Verità. This public event served to summarize the work performed and the resulted collected in the context of the EU-funded Seawind project.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTn7SEo8qls

[caromia333]

50 second summary video from World Health Organization Summit on Wifi and cell technology.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgGJeOVEdQsDr. Anthony Miller, senior advisor to the WHO IARC reviewed the best available scientific*evidence and now concludes that cell phone and wireless radiation is a carcinogen.*This excerpt is from a July 31, 2017 lecture he gave in a scientific symposium sponsored by Environmental Health Trust. Get powerpoint slides and learn more at https://ehtrust.org/scientific-update...

[caromia333]

https://ehtrust.org/take-action/educ...s-and-wi-fi-2/

Top 10 Facts About Cell Phones And Wi-Fi

Twitter

1. All Cell Phones And Wireless Devices Emit Radiation.




Every wireless device is actually a two-way microwave radio that sends and receives a type of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation called radio frequency radiation RF – EMF. This machine-made radiation is millions of times higher than the natural electromagnetic fields (EMFs) our grandparents were exposed to.Numerous peer reviewed published research studies shows that these made-made pulsed electromagnetic frequencies cause adverse biological effects and are very different than the natural electromagnetic fields that have existed in the environment for years. Research on humans has found an association between cell phone use and serious effects such as brain cancer, headaches, damage to the brain and immune system. Yale studiesfound that cellular radiation exposure during pregnancy led to increased hyperactivity and memory problems in offspring.



2. Our Brains And Bodies Are Penetrated By This Radiation.




When we hold a cell phone against our head to talk, the radiation from the phone moves into our brain. Likewise, when we use a wireless laptop, the radiation penetrates into our abdominal region, chest area and brain.According to the International Agency for the Research on Cancer:
“the average radio frequency radiation energy deposition for children exposed to mobile phone RF is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull, compared with mobile phone use by adults”.
(Read it on page 44 of the IARC Monograph on Radiofrequency Fields)

Multiple research studies report cell phone radiation penetrates more deeply into children’s brains (Fernandez-Rodriguez 2015 , Fernández 2015, Mohammed 2017) in comparison to adults.
Research also has found that radiation from tablets penetrates more deeply into children’s brains (Ferreira 2015.) A 2018 study that considered the radiation dose into the brain of teenagers found that teens who used cell phones up to their head had decreased memory performance on researchers tests.
.



3. Cell Phones And Wireless Devices Emit Radiation Constantly, Even When You Are Not Talking Or Using The Phone.




A powered on cell phone is always “checking in” and maintaining a connection to the nearest cell tower by sendsintense bursts of radiation several times per second. Likewise, a wireless-enabled laptop, tablet or other device is always “checking in” with the nearby router or a network base. These “check ins” are radiation emissions—happening several times per second, and whether or not a connection is successfully established.Medical doctors have written many letters to schools calling for administrators to reduce exposures to this radiation in schools. Harvard doctors have published research linking electromagnetic fields to autism.



4. Every Wireless Device Has Fine Print Instructions Buried In Its User Manual That Specify A Distance Between The Device And User That Should Not Be Surpassed.




For example, most cell phone manuals state the phone should be held at specified distance (often around 5/8th of an inch) from the body. If you look in the user manual for your DECT cordless home phone, wireless laptop or printer, it will state that the device should be at least 20 cm (approximately 8 inches) away from the body to prevent “exceeding FCC radiation exposure limits”. These instructions are in the user manuals because cell phones and wireless devices are tested for user radiation exposures at those specific distances.
In other words, if you are using a laptop on your lap, you are exposing yourself to untested radiation emissions that could exceed the radiation levels our government regulations presently allow. When you use a device closer than the manufacturer’s distance instructions, you risk exposing yourself to radiation levels that our federal government understands can cause sterility, brain damage and tissue damage. Learn more about the fine print warnings on various devices here.



5. These Fine Print Instructions DO NOT Protect You From All Health Effects.



The instructions buried in your manual are not safe enough. Even if you follow these instructions, you risk your health. Note: radiation exposure at the specified distances is much higher than zero. Accumulating research now shows a myriad of health effects occur at levels far far below (literally tens of thousands times lower than) government regulation limits. Wireless devices were not adequately tested before they came on the market.


6. Research Shows Low Levels Of This Radiation Impact The Brain And Reproductive System.



Wireless radiation has been shown to change brain function even at levels hundreds of thousands of times below federal guidelines. In 2011, Dr. Volkow’s NIH research showed that the brain increased glucose metabolism when exposed to cell phone radiation. Dr. Suleyman Kaplan has published multiple research studies showing damaged brain development in the offspring of prenatally exposed test subjects. Significant research shows that wireless exposures decrease and damage sperm and that prenatal exposure can alter testis and ovarian development. These are just a few examples from a large body of accumulated science which shows effects from cell phone and wireless radiation.


7. Radiation Emitted By Cell Phones And Wireless Is Officially Linked To Cancer.



In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer first classified cell phone and wireless radiation as a “class 2 B Possible Human Carcinogen” based on these research studies that showed long-term users of cell phones had higher rates of brain cancer on the side of the head where they held the phone.The United States National Toxicology Program completed a $30M study that found “clear evidence” of cancer in male rats exposed to long term low level radio-frequency radiation. Due to these findings, several scientists have published that the weight of current peer reviewed evidence supports the conclusion that radiofrequency radiation should be regarded as a human carcinogen.



8. As The Evidence Linking Wireless Radiation To Cancer Has Significantly Increased Since 2011, Now Scientists State That Cell Phone Wireless Radiation Is A Human Carcinogen.



In 2016, a major US government study found cell phone radiation caused increased cancers (brain and heart nerve) in rats exposed at low levels for two years. The results were stunning because the cancers the rats developed are the same type humans are developing after long term cell phone use.
Furthermore, since 2011, new research studies have been published linking wireless radiation to cancer. CERENAT (a case control national study in France) again showed a statistically significant association between glioma (brain cancer) and long-erm cell phone use. Another study out of Jacobs University (which replicated previous study results) showed that RF acted as a tumor promoter. The study details in its conclusion how, “Numbers of tumors of the lungs and livers in exposed animals were significantly higher than in sham-exposed controls. In addition, lymphomas were also found to be significantly elevated by exposure.”
In light of this published science, several World Health Organization experts are stating that the evidence has now substantially increased. Dr. Anthony B. Miller has testified on the increased evidence, and he and colleagues have written several published papers detailing their opinion and in 2018 he was lead author on a published literature review concluding that cell phone wireless radiation is a human carcinogen. Scientists from Israel researching cancr in radar operators also concluded that the evidence indicates radiofrequency can cause cancer (Peleg 2018.) Dr. Hardell and colleagues have long published papers concluding that that wireless “should be regarded as human carcinogen requiring urgent revision of current exposure guidelines.”



9. Solutions Exist: Hundreds Of Scientists Worldwide Recommend Taking Action To Reduce Exposures To Wireless Devices Because Of The Serious Health Effects From These Devices.



In 2015, a large group of scientists and medical doctors signed onto a formal Appeal to the United Nations and the World Health Organization, calling on them to take immediate action on this issue. This Appeal is now signed by over 250 experts and is published in the International Journal of Oncology.In 2014, a group of U.S. physicians, including the Chief of Obstetrics at Yale Medicine, presented scientific studies at the launch of the BabySafe Project, issuing specific recommendations to pregnant women on how to decrease wireless exposures in order to decrease risks to babies’ brain development. We do not have to give up our technology but we can make smarter choices about the way we use it. Every person can easily decrease exposure to this radiation by making simple changes every day.



10. Government Regulations Are Outdated And Antiquated.

[Shepherd]

This substantial list of proof about the dangers of cell phones and Wi-Fi should be sufficient to answer those doubting the truth of their multiple dangers.

Top 10 Facts About Cell Phones And Wi-Fi...

[podfish]

This substantial list of proof about the dangers of cell phones and Wi-Fi should be sufficient to answer those doubting the truth of their multiple dangers.

not in the way you mean 'answer'. This isn't AGW, where a preponderance of scientists, both "experts" and dilettantes, have reached a consensus about the danger. And where the traditional cost/benefit analysis supports taking strong precautionary actions.

In EMF there certainly is cause for concern, but the balance of expert to dilettante is different. Many who raise the alarm aren't qualified to be treated as experts. In AGW, it's reversed - many who raise doubts don't qualify as experts. So in general, I don't object to those raising awareness of the issue, pressing for continued research into the actual danger, and for practical precautions to be taken. But the blanket assertion that "it's dangerous and should be severely limited" is unconvincing. When people who take that position want to impose precautionary measures, I don't trust their judgement as to what's appropriate, any more than I trust those with heavy economic interest in pushing it out as fast as possible.

[Barry]

You know everything is not good for you from the sun, vegetables, and most notably cars (which killed 1.3 million people in 2015), yet we accept these risks, and each of does what we choose to mitigate these risks.

EMF is no different. Might it have some small negative health effect? Possibly. But EMF radiation has been with us for a long time, starting with radio and then TV, and mobile phones for almost 30 years now, and then scary wi-fi. But where is the epidemic of health effects?

The advent of 5G is no different. It comes with a new name, plus scary visible boxes, that serve to substantiate fears. It's just the next invisible unproven cause to attribute all unknown health concerns upon... no different then gluten (aside from the 1% that actually have celiacs disease).

[caromia333]

As someone who studied and taught environmental science -- I would say that EMF and the new rollout of 5G is far more dangerous than overexposure to the sun or anything man has created beyond our climate change crisis.
I also know people who have tumors related to cell-phone use and placement of the phone on their body.

I think it's worthwhile to read the best books on the subject - before coming to any conclusions. Read books by the world's by pre-eminent scientists whose reputations are above reproach.

One book that stands out for the layperson to understand and grasp electricity and electromagnetic radiation and the vast differences between it and natural sunlight and radiation is: Overpowered: The Dangers of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMF) and What You Can Do About It - by Dr. Martin Blank -

Dr. Blank has a 40 year + academic career at Columbia University - Dr. Blank lays out a concise, easy to read treatise on this subject. He is a genius at making complicated subjects easy for people who do not have a background in science. After reading this book you will understand what non-ionizing radiation is and how it impacts the body.

Imagine putting your head in a microwave. Something I think most people instinctively know they shouldn't do. That's pretty much what EMF does to your body and yet it is so easy to just wire your computer ($10 cable and avoid wifi and its KNOWN serious health impacts).

If you don't trust Dr. Blank - then watch the videos from the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. Surely you don't question their integrity?

"Non-ionizing radiation can produce non-mutagenic effects such as inciting thermal energy in biological tissue that can lead to burns. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) from the World Health Organization (WHO) released a statement adding radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including microwave and millimeter waves) to their list of things which are possibly carcinogenic..."

MARTIN BLANK earned PhDs in physical chemistry (1957) from Columbia University and in colloid science (1960) from University of Cambridge. He came to the department in 1959, retired as Associate Professor in 2011 and is now a Special Lecturer. His research has been on membranes, transport processes, excitation, and recently on health effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR). His book on health effects of EMR is due out at the end of 2013.

During his tenure, he had short-term appointments at 11 universities around the world, as well as at five industrial research labs and the US Office of Naval Research. He also organized many meetings, including two World Congresses on Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine, 4 Erice (Italy) Courses on Bioelectrochemistry, and he started the Gordon Research Conferences on Bioelectrochemistry. He has been Chairman of the Organic and Biological Division of the Electrochemical Society, President of the Bioelectrochemical Society, President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and has been on editorial boards of Journal of the Electrochemical Society, Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, Electromagnetic Medicine and Biology. He was the editor of the 2009 special issue of Pathophysiology on EMR. He has published over 200 papers and reviews, as well as twelve edited books on electrical properties of biological systems, including the Proceedings of the First World Congress on "Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine", "Electromagnetic Fields: Biological Interactions and Mechanisms". He was one of the organizers of the online Bioinitiative Report, and edited the 2009 update in Pathophysiology.

[Sasu]

We had faulty wiring in our house that created elevated electric and magnetic fields. When the power was off the difference was obvious. Many people comment that they feel more peaceful when the power is off.

I posted my test because in the Bohemian article Sandi was quoted as saying she could send the lack of EMF immediately:

EMF Safety Network director Sandi Maurer says she began experiencing EHS symptoms in 2006. Finding no explanation for her discomfort, she called on Michael Neuwert, a local electrician who started researching the health effects of electromagnetism exposure in the 1980s. He came to her house to examine the wiring. "When he shut off the breakers, I immediately began to feel better."

[Barry]

From:


Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones
8 October 2014

[Emphasis added by Barry]

Are there any health effects?

A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.

Short-term effects

Tissue heating is the principal mechanism of interaction between radiofrequency energy and the human body. At the frequencies used by mobile phones, most of the energy is absorbed by the skin and other superficial tissues, resulting in negligible temperature rise in the brain or any other organs of the body.

A number of studies have investigated the effects of radiofrequency fields on brain electrical activity, cognitive function, sleep, heart rate and blood pressure in volunteers. To date, research does not suggest any consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at levels below those that cause tissue heating. Further, research has not been able to provide support for a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and self-reported symptoms, or “electromagnetic hypersensitivity”.

Long-term effects

Epidemiological research examining potential long-term risks from radiofrequency exposure has mostly looked for an association between brain tumours and mobile phone use. However, because many cancers are not detectable until many years after the interactions that led to the tumour, and since mobile phones were not widely used until the early 1990s, epidemiological studies at present can only assess those cancers that become evident within shorter time periods. However, results of animal studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency fields.

Several large multinational epidemiological studies have been completed or are ongoing, including case-control studies and prospective cohort studies examining a number of health endpoints in adults. The largest retrospective case-control study to date on adults, Interphone, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), was designed to determine whether there are links between use of mobile phones and head and neck cancers in adults.

The international pooled analysis of data gathered from 13 participating countries found no increased risk of glioma or meningioma with mobile phone use of more than 10 years. There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma for those who reported the highest 10% of cumulative hours of cell phone use, although there was no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use. The researchers concluded that biases and errors limit the strength of these conclusions and prevent a causal interpretation.

Based largely on these data, IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

While an increased risk of brain tumors is not established, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 years warrant further research of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk. In particular, with the recent popularity of mobile phone use among younger people, and therefore a potentially longer lifetime of exposure, WHO has promoted further research on this group. Several studies investigating potential health effects in children and adolescents are underway.

---

Seems to me that there are lot more pressing dangers out there...