A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Mountain Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cell Phones Invisible Hazards of the Wireless Age



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 26th 07, 03:32 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Cell Phones Invisible Hazards of the Wireless Age

http://commonground.ca/iss/0612185/c...llphone.shtml:

Cell phones Invisible hazards of the wireless age

by Amanda Brown PhD

Few people would be surprised to hear that cell phones are unhealthy.
But how many of us actually know the degree of damage they cause, the
extent of the cover-up by the industry, or that there is a viable
solution? Dr. George Carlo, a mobile phone industry whistleblower,
recently presented a talk in Vancouver about how electropollution from
wireless technology can cause brain damage, cancer and an array of
mental illnesses.
I checked his facts against recent, peer-reviewed scientific papers
and the results were startling. Dr. Carlo explained why the industry’s
user manuals don’t warn of these health hazards: currently, there are
pending class action lawsuits against them, which threaten to expose
the entire industry, similar to the cases brought against “Big
Tobacco”, and the asbestos and silicone breast implant industries. But
what really shone brightly in Dr. Carlo’s message were his realistic
solutions. One option is to have fibre-optic cables running
underground to our curbs to shorten the distance and power necessary
for the wireless signals. According to Dr. Carlo, this option requires
an ongoing search for the diamond politician or activist who will take
the lead.
It’s important to get the facts straight. Dr. Carlo, a scientist hired
by the cell phone industry in the ‘90s, now believes cell phones are
the greatest health hazard of our time. In his view, there is no
question that mobile phones cause terrible health consequences. It
seemed prudent to independently check the recent, peer-reviewed
scientific literature to see if his mid-1990s results are supported
today. A quick search revealed five excellent studies from 2006 that
provide strong evidence of serious problems from electromagnetic
signals from cell phones.
In contrast, several review studies that pooled results from 10 to 20
other studies suggested the evidence isn’t conclusive either way.
However, these reviews may have been diluted by the inclusion of some
studies with ties to telecommunication industry funders. One author
cited in these studies is affiliated with on Australian institute that
has an FAQ web page full of suspicious PR (see
www.acrbr.org.au/FAQ.htm). The website states this group of scientists
has agreed, by committee, on the science they want to do: essentially,
that which shows cell phones are harmless, and they will focus their
research accordingly. Very revealing PR. Dr. Carlo also found that
among more than 300 studies completed over the past six years, those
funded by the industry are more than six times more likely to find
“nothing wrong” than studies that are funded independently.
Dr. Carlo explained in detail his theory of how cell phones cause
brain damage. It begins with the wave. The signals use carrier waves
of around 1,900 megahertz (MHz), which are so high in frequency that
they pass right through us, and our houses, unnoticed. But harmful
information-carrying waves are packed into the carrier waves. These
information waves, which carry signals that can be decoded by our
computers and mobile phones, are low-frequency waves in the range of
one hertz (Hz). That’s slow. So slow that our cells can feel them as
an aggravating, physical jolt at their surfaces. Within 30 seconds or
so of bombardment, our cells temporarily shut down their surface
transport and intercellular communication functions, to resist further
damage from threatening invaders.
Normally, small threats to cells cause them to send out chemical
signals to neighbouring cells that tell them to protect themselves
from invaders, and they signal for help from our immune system’s
T-cells. But bombardment from mobile phone waves causes whole areas of
cells and tissues to shut down their surfaces, stopping the active
transport of good and bad stuff in and out of the cell, without time
to signal a warning to other cells. Further, the shut down of gap
junction communication pathways compromises tissue and organ
functions, including the immune system.
Free radicals build up inside the cells so they eventually die and
spill toxins and fragmented DNA into the space between cells. There,
micronuclei form as a result of membranes becoming organized around
broken bits of DNA. These micronuclei wreak havoc, disrupting cell
function and allowing cancers to form. That is how, as Dr. Carlo
explains, both benign and malignant tumours are caused by wireless
signals. He suggests a similar process occurs at the blood-brain
barrier that protects our delicate neurons and their tiny
sophisticated chemical signals from contaminants in our blood. Once
cells in the barrier are shut down by mobile phone waves, all kinds of
big, toxic molecules enter our neural spaces where they can cause many
problems, among them “autism spectrum disorders,” which include some
types of anxiety attacks, hyperactivity, ADD, problems with focussing,
mild and severe autism, hyper-irritability and others.
Based on levels of adult cell phone use in the ‘90s, Dr. Carlo
predicts 40,000 to 50,000 new cases of brain and eye cancer caused by
mobile phones each year worldwide. By 2010, he estimates the number to
be near a half million cases. Given that Dr. Carlo’s prediction
derives from conditions in the ‘90s – average use of 500 to 1,000
minutes per month, with little or no wireless background signal – the
numbers are bound to be higher. Increasingly, we are blasted by
wireless signals all day long, both at home and at work. In certain
closed spaces, such as cars or buses, the signals are intensely
amplified as they bounce around, trapped. Data, so far, suggest there
is no safe level, only a probable safe duration of exposure. Our cells
may not be damaged until after about 30 seconds of bombardment from
wireless phone signals.
Dr. Carlo also suggests our cells can be imprinted so they remember
the disruption and pass it down to future cells. This may be why some
people seem to have heightened sensitivity, experienced as sudden
unexplained anxiety when walking past a wireless hotspot. While
peer-reviewed studies have not yet been done to directly address this
claim, most of us have experienced the effects of an
information-carrying signal that disrupts sensitive objects around us,
like the car stereo. Although additional research is required, our
instincts are probably right; these signals have an effect and it is
unnerving.
So why don’t our cell phones and wireless cards come with a “Use at
your own risk” label and a warning that there is evidence they may be
harmful? The crux of the problem is historical. Mobile phones were
exempted from pre-market safety testing in the ‘80s because they were
presented as merely “low-powered” devices, taking the onus off the
industry to prove their safety. This was a problem for advocates and
opponents alike.
Industry found it necessary to prove they were safe to defend against
claims such as the cell phone related brain cancer death of Deborah
Reynard in 1993. Reynard’s cancer was unusual, growing from the
outside to the inside of her head, at the precise location of her
mobile phone antenna. Following that case, the industry began to fund
its own researchers to study the health effects of cell phones, but it
struck a deal with the regulating bodies that stipulated they would
only research the damaging effects of cell phones as long as they
could remain unregulated until all the research was done. That’s when
the industry hired Dr. Carlo.
Even before Dr. Carlo’s group’s research was published, the industry
began to file for patents on devices to make them safe, but these
depended on proof that cell phones posed a danger. It was a classic
Catch-22, leading to a cascade of hypocritical acts by the industry as
it sought safer technologies, while at the same time printing users’
manuals stating that cell phones were not harmful.
The industry was obviously aware that Dr. Carlo was a threat; since
his findings, he has been threatened, physically attacked, defamed and
his house mysteriously burned down. By 1998, his group’s research
showed that the nearfield electromagnetic plume of seven or eight
inches around the antenna of the cell phone caused leakage in the
blood brain barrier, as well as rare neural-epithelial cancers and
double to triple the risk of benign and malignant brain tumours.
Then there’s the story of Milt Bowling, Canada’s most outspoken mobile
phone critic and head of the Electromagnetic Radiation Task Force
(ERTFC). In the ‘90s, Bowling was catapulted into an all-consuming
battle with the industry when it attempted to erect a cell tower on
the roof of his son’s school. It became outrageous when one company
implanted a mobile phone transmitter inside a church cross and donated
it to the church across from the school.
Bowling’s story appeared on the Fifth Estate in 1997 and made waves
around the world. His chief concern now is that our safety regulations
are ridiculously outdated, only requiring limits for radiation high
enough to heat body tissue by one degree celsius within six minutes.
He says this is like saying “if it doesn’t cook you, there’s no
problem.” Clearly, science shows problems prior to the tissue heating.
Given the threat of public opposition roused by activists such as Dr.
Carlo, and Bowling here in Vancouver, why don’t our governments
establish more restrictions? Vested interests are a huge problem.
Governments know they can only charge a tiny fee for licensing
alternatives, such as fibre-optics, whereas they can charge a fortune
for wireless bandwiths, totalling several billion dollars in the US.
So governments have taken the path-most-paying. As an example, to pay
for initial, expensive, wireless infrastructure (towers), industry
made agreements with regulators (e.g. the Federal Communications
Commission, or FCC in the US) that the big companies could pay 10
percent down and leave the cell phone users to pay off the remainder.
This may be the reason for the aggressive marketing of mobile phone
plans to teens; there’s a big debt to pay off.
The industry’s need to cover-up the hazards of wireless technology has
been fuelled not only by fear of lost profits, but also by fear of
bankruptcy. Insurance companies gradually withdrew all coverage for
claims relating to health problems from cell phones following the
first studies showing they were dangerous. Today, there are seven
pending class action suits against the mobile phone industry; one
successful lawsuit alone could bankrupt a company by setting a
precedent for other pending lawsuits. It took just one such lawsuit
each to bring down the silicone breast implant and asbestos
industries.
A more frightening side of all of this is that the cell/wireless
industries represent such an enormous portion of the stock market. If
they caved in suddenly, the ripples could be catastrophic. We all need
to be sensible. Expose the truth, plan for changes and move swiftly
and intelligently towards a better, less wireless world.

This article was inspired by a recent talk by Dr. George Carlo, a
scientist and cell phone industry whistleblower. Visit
(www.safewireless.org) for more information about Dr. Carlo’s work.
His visit to Vancouver was sponsored by the Health ActionNetwork
Society (www.hans.org).

Dr. Carlo offers solutions at three levels:
1) primary solutions that prevent damage;
2) secondary solutions that reduce the effects of the damage;
3) tertiary solutions that repair the damage.
Primary solutions include using a hands-free headset to keep the phone
away from your body. However, this doesn’t reduce your background
exposure to wireless hotspots, and even worse, wire-antenna and
Bluetooth headsets may act as antennas to attract ambient or
background wireless signals to your head. Dr. Carlo suggests using
“air-based” head sets, although they won’t prevent second-hand
electropollution.
The best solution is to reduce background radiation by moving to an
older, but better, technology: fibre-optic cables that transport the
signal to the curbsides of our schools, cafes, offices and homes,
after which we can either plug-in to the signals or use short distance
or air-based wireless. It’s expensive in that it involves digging
trenches to keep the cables straight and protected, but the technology
is ready to go and the insulation around them is very effective; the
radiation is almost nil.
Dr. Carlo suggests combining primary solutions with secondary and
tertiary solutions. Secondary solutions include working with the
subtle energies of our cells, which have their own natural
electromagnetic fields. Tertiary solutions include enhancing people’s
overall health to foster the repair of cell membranes. Boosting our
health by improving the immune system’s ability to stimulate cellular
repair may help with both of these solutions. However, in our cities
with widespread, blanket wireless systems, as in Toronto where
background radiation is already 500,000 times higher than it was five
years ago, it’s hard to imagine that merely boosting our immune
systems could completely counter the harmful effects.
Lastly, Dr. Carlo talked about abstinence. He confessed that while
abstinence works, it is not really practical. Try getting teens off
their cell phones! One study showed that 91 percent of 12 year olds
use cell phones, and in Buffalo teens were clocking in 2,600 to 7,000
minutes per month on their phones.
With cheap packages going for as little as $150 for 5,000 minutes,
it’s unlikely teens will abstain any time soon. Among males, there’s
even the belief that carrying their phone in their front pocket, where
it is known to reduce sperm count, is the greatest thing ever, good
birth control! Abstinence doesn’t work for cell phones any more than
it works for teens and sex. In fact, Dr. Carlo himself uses a cell
phone, albeit, with an air-based headset.
Marketing campaigns for mobile phones and wireless technology
capitalize on our need to fill the empty spaces in our urban
landscape. They are irresistible because they facilitate community.
Despite the damage they cause, we like the feeling of the grassroots
empowerment and interconnectedness they provide.
If this connection is real, let's harness it now to spread the truth
about these hazards and work together on solutions.

--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
Ads
  #2  
Old April 26th 07, 06:28 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,556
Default Cell Phones Invisible Hazards of the Wireless Age

Mike Vandeman writes:

http://commonground.ca/iss/0612185/c...llphone.shtml:

Cell phones Invisible hazards of the wireless age

by Amanda Brown PhD


What does Amanda Brown have her PhD in? A google search had a
food nutritionist at the top of the list, but the name is common
enough that it is likely to be a different person?.

BTW, you can also find this "article" at

http://archives.zinester.com/43520/116342.html,

the "Conspiracy Journal". :-)


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA: (Bicyclists) Cell phone case for Moto RAZR (and smaller phones) Stevie Marketplace 0 May 25th 06 04:41 AM
Cell phones while riding [email protected] General 35 May 3rd 06 02:19 AM
Cell phones - need for regulation or discretion Dantana General 11 August 11th 04 11:57 PM
Can cell phones make you sterile? Steve Racing 2 June 29th 04 01:46 AM
Cell Phones worse than DJs Robert Chambers General 36 November 22nd 03 12:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.