jump to navigation

What is Non-Ionizing Radiation? April 6, 2007

Posted by healthyself in 0 Hz-3kHz, 000 Hz, 1 GHz- 300 GHz, 1 mm, 100 nm - 400 nm, 3 kHz-300 GHz, 300 GHz, 400 nm - 700 nm, 700 nm, Amplified Signals, Amplitude, Analog, Antennas, Atmospheric Pressure, Blogroll, Bytes, Cable, Cell Masts, Cell Phones, Coherence, Computer Rooms, Cordless Phones, DECT, Distribution, Earth, EEG, EHF, Electrical Components, Electrical Pulses, Electrical Surges, Electrical Wiring, electromagnetic, Electromagnetic Communications, Electromagnetic Field, Electromagnetic Interference, Electromagnetic pollution, Electromagnetic Radiation, Electromagnetic Spectrum, Electromagnetic waves, Electrosensitivity, Electrosmog, ELF, EMF Research, EMF's, EMR, Entropy, Environment, Exposure, Fiber Optic, Frequencies, Hand Portables, Handheld Units, HF, High Frequencies, high voltage transmission lines, Internet, ionizing radiation, Landline, Laptops, LF, Lifestyle, Light, light beam, Long Term Health Risks, Low Frequencies, Magnetic, MCS, MF, MHz, Microwave exposure, Mobile Music, mobile telephones, Non-Thermal Levels, Penetration, Photons, Photosensitive, Pulsed Radiation, Pulses, Pure Tone, QV, Radar, Radians, radiation, Radio Frequency Radiation, Radio Waves, radioprotector, Radios, Research Needed, Resonance, Resonant Frequency, ringing, ringtones, Risk of Disease, Safe Levels, Safety, SAR, Schuman Resonance, SHF, Speakerphones, Spectrum, Telecommunications, Telephony, Transducer, Transfer, transmission, UHF, Ultraviolet, VDT, Visible Light, VLF, W/Kg, W/m2, watts, Wave Front, Waves, Who is Affected?, WiFi, Wired, Wired Phone, Wireless, Wireless Phones, X-Rays.
add a comment

Definitions

The properties and effects of non-ionising radiations are very diverse. For the purpose of this Policy non-ionising radiations include:

Extremely low frequency (ELF) radiation

Electromagnetic radiation with frequencies in the range 0 Hz (static fields) to 3 kHz, including the 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields associated with the domestic mains electricity supply such as in domestic electrical appliances, electricity supply substations and overhead power lines.

Radiofrequency (RF) radiation

Electromagnetic radiation with frequencies in the range 3 kHz to 300 GHz, which is produced by artificial sources such as visual display units and mobile phones.

Microwave (MW) radiation

Electromagnetic radiation with frequencies in the range 1 GHz to 300 GHz, which is produced by artificial sources such as in microwave ovens and by microwave communication devices. (This radiation is now considered part of Radiofrequency radiation.)

Infrared (IR) radiation

Electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between 700 nm and 1 mm, which is present in sunlight and produced by artificial sources such as electric radiator heaters.

Visible light

Electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between 400 nm (blue) and 700 nm (red), which is present in sunlight and produced by numerous artificial sources, including lasers.

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation

Electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between 100 nm and 400 nm, which is present in sunlight as well as produced by artificial sources such as arc welding and sterilization lamps.

http://www.unisa.edu.au/policies/policies/hr/HR30.asp

What are Electric and Magnetic Fields? April 6, 2007

Posted by healthyself in Blogroll, Definitions, Earth, Electrical Components, Electrical Pulses, Electrical Surges, Electrical Wiring, electromagnetic, Electromagnetic Field, Electromagnetic Radiation, Electromagnetic waves, EMF's, EMR, Environment, Frequencies, High Frequencies, high voltage transmission lines, Hz, LF, Light, light beam, Low Frequencies, Magnetic, MCS, MF, MHz, Microwave exposure, Pulsed Radiation, Pulses, Radar, Radians, radiation, Radio Frequency Radiation, Radio Waves, Resonant Frequency, Safe Levels, Transducer, transmission, UHF, VDT, VLF, W/Kg, W/m2, watts, Wave Front, Waves.
add a comment

Electric fields

Magnetic fields

  1. Electric fields arise from voltage.
  2. Their strength is measured in Volts per metre (V/m)
  3. An electric field can be present even when a device is switched off.
  4. Field strength decreases with distance from the source.
  5. Most building materials shield electric fields to some extent.
  1. Magnetic fields arise from current flows.
  2. Their strength is measured in amperes per meter (A/m). Commonly, EMF investigators use a related measure, flux density (in microtesla (µT) or millitesla (mT) instead.
  3. Magnetic fields exist as soon as a device is switched on and current flows.
  4. Field strength decreases with distance from the source.
  5. Magnetic fields are not attenuated by most mat

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/

High Frequency Electromagnetic Fields April 5, 2007

Posted by healthyself in Amplified Signals, Amplitude, Antennas, Blogroll, Cable, Cell Masts, Cell phone industry, Cell phone safety, Cell Phones, Computer Rooms, Cordless Phones, Definitions, Digital, Distribution, Electrical Components, Electrical Pulses, Electrical Wiring, Electromagnetic Communications, Electromagnetic Field, Electromagnetic Interference, Electromagnetic pollution, Electromagnetic Radiation, Electromagnetic Spectrum, Electromagnetic waves, Electrosensitivity, Electrosmog, ELF, Emergency Medicine, EMF Research, EMF's, EMR, Energy, Environment, Epidemiology, Exposure, Frequencies, GHz, Government's role, HF, High Frequencies, high voltage transmission lines, Homes, HOuseholds, HRD, Human Resources, Hz, Infrared, Interdisciplinary, Landline, Laptops, Legal Issues, Lifestyle, Low Frequencies, MCS, MF, MHz, Microwave exposure, Mitigation, mobile telephones, Oscillate, Pulsed Radiation, Pulses, Radar, radiation, Radio Frequency Radiation, Radio Waves, Radios, Research Needed, Resonant Frequency, Risk of Disease, Sound, Speakerphones, Telecommunications, Telephony, Transducer, Transfer, transmission, UHF, VDT, VLF, W/Kg, W/m2, watts, Wave Front, Waves, Who is Affected?, WiFi, Wired, Wired Phone, Wireless, Wireless Phones, Workplace, X-Rays.
add a comment

“Mobile telephones, television and radio transmitters and radar produce RF fields. These fields are used to transmit information over long distances and form the basis of telecommunications as well as radio and television broadcasting all over the world. Microwaves are RF fields at high frequencies in the GHz range. In microwaves ovens, we use them to quickly heat food.””At radio frequencies, electric and magnetic fields are closely interrelated and we typically measure their levels as power densities in watts per square metre (W/m2).”

“Key points:

  • The electromagnetic spectrum encompasses both natural and human-made sources of electromagnetic fields.
  • Frequency and wavelength characterise an electromagnetic field. In an electromagnetic wave, these two characteristics are directly related to each other: the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength.
  • Ionizing radiation such as X-ray and gamma-rays consists of photons which carry sufficient energy to break molecular bonds. Photons of electromagnetic waves at power and radio frequencies have much lower energy that do not have this ability.
  • Electric fields exist whenever charge is present and are measured in volts per metre (V/m). Magnetic fields arise from current flow. Their flux densities are measured in microtesla (µT) or millitesla (mT).
  • At radio and microwave frequencies, electric and magnetic fields are considered together as the two components of an electromagnetic wave. Power density, measured in watts per square metre (W/m2), describes the intensity of these fields.
  • Low frequency and high frequency electromagnetic waves affect the human body in different ways.
  • Electrical power supplies and appliances are the most common sources of low frequency electric and magnetic fields in our living environment. Everyday sources of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are telecommunications, broadcasting antennas and microwave ovens.”

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/

Sleep Problems, the use of CPAP and BIPAP machines, and Electromagnetic Concerns April 2, 2007

Posted by healthyself in Bioeffects, Biological Activity, Biological Dentistry, Biological Effects, BIPAP, Blogroll, Brainwave Interference, Buzzing, Central Nervous System, Chronic Exhaustion, Chronic Fatigue, Consciousness, CPAP, Cytotoxic Effects, Decision Making, Definitions, Electrical Components, Electrical Pulses, Electrical Surges, Electrical Wiring, Electromagetic pollution, Electromagnetic Interference, Electromagnetic pollution, Electromagnetic Radiation, Electromagnetic waves, Electrosensitivity, Electrosmog, ELF, Emergency Medicine, EMF's, Employees, EMR, Energy Centers, Environment, Epidemiologists, Epidemiology, Exposure, Frequencies, grams of tissue, Health, Health and Safety Officer, Health related, Homes, Hospitals, HOuseholds, HRD, Human Resources, Hz, Inflammation, Insomnia, Interdisciplinary, Lifestyle, Long Term Health Risks, Low Frequencies, Medical Research, Melatonin, Men's Health, Metabolic Changes, MF, MHz, Microwave exposure, Mitigation, Neural Electrophysiology, neurological, Neurotransmitters, Non Profit Organizations, Parenting, Pulsed Radiation, Pulses, radiation, Radio Frequency Radiation, Research, Research Needed, Resonance, Resonant Frequency, Risk Factor, Risk of Disease, Sick People, signaling enzymes, Skull, Sleep, Sleep Centers, Sleep disturbances, Solutions, Stress, Symptoms, Toxic Interactions, University, Vibration, VLF, watts, Waves, Who is Affected?, Wired, Women's Health, yawning.
5 comments

Do you use a machine to help you sleep?

You may be exposing yourself to increased pulsed radiation.

“…any machine that is operational will be putting forth a magnetic field. Considering the fact that both the cpap and bipap are strictly to insure respiration makes them a higher priority for health than the EMFs. Thus the only consideration is to convert the MF to a less invasive form. There are several devices that can be applied to these and any other electrical devices to decrease the effects of the EMFs. If that suggestion does not fall completely within your level of acceptability you might try to convince the manufacturers to come with a longer hose in order to create a greater distance from the actual pump.”

Dr. Howard Fisher

Watch for Dr. Fisher’s upcoming book: “The Invisible Threat: The Risks sssociated ith EMFs,” which will be released soon.

Danger for Children and Staff in Schools April 2, 2007

Posted by healthyself in .1W/m2, 10 W/m2, 23000 uWatt/mw, Bioeffects, Biological Activity, Biological Effects, Blogroll, Bluetooth, Cable, Children's health, Chromosomal damage, Communication, Community, Computer Rooms, Cytotoxic Effects, Decision Making, DECT, Distribution, Electrical Components, Electrical Pulses, Electrical Surges, Electrical Wiring, Electromagnetic Communications, Electromagnetic Field, Electromagnetic pollution, Electromagnetic Radiation, Electromagnetic waves, Electrosensitivity, Electrosmog, ELF, Emergency Medicine, EMF Research, EMF's, Employees, EMR, Environment, Epidemiologists, Epidemiology, Exposure, Financial Considerations, Frequencies, genetic damage, Government's role, grams of tissue, Hand Portables, Handheld Units, Health and Safety Officer, Health related, High Frequencies, HRD, Human Resources, Hz, Interdisciplinary, Kids, Landline, Laptops, Lifestyle, Long Term Health Risks, Low Frequencies, Men's Health, Metabolic Changes, MHz, Music, Networks, Non Profit Organizations, Parenting, Public Policy, radiation, Radio Frequency Radiation, Research, Research Needed, Risk Factor, Risk of Disease, Safe Levels, Safety, SAR, School administrators, School Boards, Schools, Solutions, Symptoms, Teenagers, Toxic Interactions, transmission, Tweenies, watts, Who is Affected?, WiFi, Wired, Wireless, Women's Health, Workplace.
add a comment

Health Dangers From Wireless Laptops Danger from high frequency fields

“Under the motto of ‘increasing efficiency’, things are happening in many schools in an almost unnoticed and uncritical manner, which would have lead to animated discussions and actions in the past. Without informing or consulting staff, the federal state of Hessen has equipped around 100 schools with laptops in the name of ‘increased media competence’, ’new learning culture’ and ‘better education’. “…”By installing these new student workstations, the government and education authorities are introducing a new technology, against which there are strong concerns about potential health effects. According to the initiative ‘Schools and Future’, in which the government and local education authorities co-operate, ‘only WLAN is to be considered’, when it comes to laptops in schools. This WLAN technology (Wireless Local Area Networks) currently pushed by the authorities, consists of a transmitter installed in the classroom or school via which the students communicate with each other, with the periphery hardware and with the internet. In this case, each laptop is a sender and a receiver. …each workstation emits high frequency electromagnetic fields, which are generally acknowledged to have harmful effects on health. …the ‘large number of studies lead to the conclusion that living organisms react to this radiation’. Precautionary health protection is therefore urgently recommended, especially if we consider the experiences from the past, when the careless use of substances like wood preservatives, asbestos and CFCs lead to devastating health hazards and financial losses, also in schools.”

High frequency radiation

“With a network within one room it is still mostly an individual decision whether the students are linked with each other via cable or wireless. If the network extends through the entire school, the staff has no possibility to decide whether they agree to be exposed to the additional radiation or not. Similar to the situation in the waiting areas in airports and large train stations, they are exposed all working day long to the electromagnetic fields from the WLAN transmitters. Exposures within a building can vary to a large degree. Overlaps and reflections can create radiation hotspots which go completely unnoticed.”

The magazine Eco-Test [Translator’s note: an ecological equivalent of the UK Which magazine] tested workstations in the juristic library in Göttingen and found a peak value of 23,000 µWatt/m2. The current official guideline in Germany [and in the UK] is 10 W/m2. Without cable connections, a WLAN-installation must also be switched on at night and linked via radio link to the network, since it is then that the remote maintenance of the school transmitter with the docked-on laptops is done. In November 2002, Eco-Test magazine found in a large study that particularly laptops which are sending information and their WLAN cards emit considerable amounts of radiation. This radiation is often considerable higher than the recommended precautionary values and in hotspots even exceeds the official guidelines. Likewise, the Nova-Institute had previously found in its study regarding the installation of a WLAN network at the University of Bremen that persons working on notebook workstations had to ‘count on the precautionary values being exceeded’.

“In addition to the already existing massive interference from unnatural electromagnetic fields from sources such as mobile phones, DECT (cordless) phones, microwave ovens and computer screens, children, adolescents and staff are now exposed to additional health hazards which would be easily avoidable. It is possible without any quantitative or qualitative sacrifice, to use any laptop with a cable and hence to avoid the additional radiation load created by a WLAN installation. Only a cable is needed to link the laptop with the network, and the peripheral hardware such as a central printer can be connected via plug-ins as well.”

Almost all arguments go against WLAN!

“In addition to the precautionary aspect, it would be cheaper for schools and local education authorities to equip schools with wired networks, since they do not incur cost for the radio (wireless). Further arguments against WLAN technology are its susceptibility to exterior influences on data transmission, its slower operational speed when compared to wired networks, its lower capacity, its limited suitability for the use in exams and its higher rate of disruption in everyday use. Exterior pressures and industry interest however, seem to outweigh all the health, technical, financial and pedagogical objections. Doubts and objections are probably not least ignored in order to further the quick implementation and testing of this new technology which promises much profit in a large-scale experiment. In some school districts, the technology is even ‘trialled’ in primary schools. Children are degraded to become test subjects.”

“There are hardly any ways to legally raise objections: ‘WLAN equipment works within the legal guidelines’ is the official justification. However, the legal basis for this, the Electromagnetic Fields Ordinance of 1996 (!) set the guidelines only based on the thermal effects of this radiation. Yet, pulsed high frequency fields are proven to have effects at power flux densities much lower than the thermal threshold. They cause headaches, high blood pressure and lack of concentration and can lead to permanent health damage. The ECOLOG Institute in Hanover has produced a science review of more than 220 peer reviewed and published studies of the various health effects of electromagnetic fields [Translator’s note: commissioned by T-Mobile, Germany] and confirmed them on a scientific basis.”

“To protect public health it is therefore no longer sufficient to apply the old, inadequate guidelines, but to introduce a new precautionary guideline, which will take all influences on health known so far into account, and which would need to be categorically adhered to with regards to the assessment of all radiation exposure. Switzerland has already implemented this. There, the precautionary upper limit for power flux density is 0.1 W/m².This is 1/100 of the current guideline value in Germany [Translator’s note: and 1/100 of the current guideline value of the UK]. ”

Based on their comprehensive science review, the ECOLOG-Institute recommends

0.01 W//m² as the precautionary upper limit. Even at this value, studies found negative influences on brain function – EEC, capacity to react, blood-brain-barrier permeability.”

Eco-Test found exposures higher than these precautionary values in the vicinity of several laptops during their on-site studies. ”

Almost criminal assault

“The uncritical IT equipment of schools with transmitters and radiation emitting laptops does not take into account that the main users are children and adolescents who will be exposed for many hours every day.”

“In the UK, the Independent Expert Group commissioned by the government in 2000 came to the conclusion that children – due to their not yet fully developed nervous system and a circa 60% higher susceptibility to energetic radiation – were far more vulnerable than adults. Hence, there should be even stricter precautionary guidelines for children. To expose children knowingly to this danger is bordering criminal assault.”

“Also often ignored is the fact that it is not just one device emitting the pulsed high frequency radiation, but that there are usually 20 or more workstations per classroom. And this in an environment which is already riddled with further sources of unnatural radiation such as fluorescent lighting halogen lamps, mobile phones and transformers. It can therefore not be excluded that an overlap of these fields will cause the electromagnetic exposure at individual workstations to greatly exceed the precautionary guidelines. ”

“Admittedly, the electromagnetic radiation of a single laptop is below that of a mobile phone. The effect of electromagnetic radiation being accumulative, it will however, increase the intensity of ‘electro-smog’. The duration of use also plays an important role: it can be many hours per day, especially for IT teachers and students. Particular protection must be provided for electrosensitive people, for whom electromagnetic radiation triggers allergic reactions. They account for 3 – 5 % of the population.” …..”The summary of the arguments presented in this article should be sufficient to object to the WLAN project of the federal state government and the education authorities with a loud and clear ‘NO, no transmitters in schools and other public institutions!’ In addition to WLAN, this also includes wireless Bluetooth equipment, DECT and mobile phones. Cabled equipment results in higher data speeds and better results. Protection and precaution against health damage should be more important than the slightly ore convenient use of wireless equipment.”

“The Union for Education and Science and all the Union representatives on the federal state, town, council and school level must exert their influence to have policies in favour of wireless equipment revised and ensure that children and staff in schools are not knowingly exposed to additional health hazards from electromagnetic fields.”…” the precautionary principle should prevail and human health should be in the centre of interest. Further research results can be expected from the REFLEX study, which was commissioned by the EU and is currently being conducted in participating countries across Europe. It examines amongst other things the effect of electromagnetic radiation on human tissue. …”
From the Union Magazine „GEW Hessen“, Nr I2/2003

http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1755556/

How Much Power Does a Cell Phone Use? September 15, 2006

Posted by healthyself in .6 W/Kg, .6 watts, 3 watts, 600-1100 watts, Cell phone safety, Energy, Environment, Low Frequencies, watts.
add a comment

“A mobile phone is designed to operate at a maximum power level of 0.6 watts. “A household microwave oven uses between 600 and 1,100 watts.”

http://www.networkworld.com/research/2001/0702featside.html

Cell phones have low-power transmitters in them. Many cell phones have two signal strengths: 0.6 watts and 3 watts (for comparison, most CB radios transmit at 4 watts).

Pulsed Signals Interfere with the Body’s Regulation from Cells to Sense Organs to the Brain September 9, 2006

Posted by healthyself in 150 MHz, 217 Hz, 8.3 Hz, Bioeffects, Biological Effects, Blogroll, Cell changes, Cell phone industry, Cell phone safety, Cell Phones, Cells, Central Nervous System, Children's health, Decision Making, Electromagnetic pollution, Electromagnetic waves, Electrosensitivity, Electrosmog, ELF, EMF Research, EMF's, Employees, EMR, Endogenous Fields, Environment, grams of tissue, Health related, heat, High Frequencies, high voltage transmission lines, Immune system, Inner Agitation, Long Term Health Risks, Low Frequencies, Men's Health, MHz, Microwave exposure, mobile telephones, nerves, Ocular, Penetration, Pulsed Radiation, radiation, Risk of Disease, Safe Levels, SAR, signaling enzymes, transmission, watts, Who is Affected?, WiFi, Women's Health.
add a comment

“It is now fairly well established that the IEEE/WHO/ICNIR standards for SAR and other exposure “standards” so called based on “heating effect” do not tell the whole story on the effects of exposure of humans of all ages, both genders and the range of physical sizes to RF at HF and above and thus cannot be considered “safe” for electro-sensitive people.”

“This standard dates back to 1944 and was originally set so that the risk from RF (Microwave) exposure would not be greater than that on a live battlefield in the Pacific War. Hardly appropriate to a civil society at the start of the 21st Century.””

It has been known and shown repeatedly that there are bio-electrical effects that start at very low levels. Between 1/1000 and 1/10000 of the current (Western) “standard’. Further it is the type of modulation or intelligence placed on to the RF that is significant; with pulsed signals being far worse then radio (AM or FM) and TV signals (that contain vestige sideband “sync pulses”) some where in the middle as far as effects are concerned.”

“Basicly the mechanism is believed to be, that cells and specifically the cells of certain organs such as the middle ear, acting as a demodulator or detector, resolving the envelope pattern of the RF signal. Where the demodulated signal has components at the various bio-active frequencies that are used for internal signals by the human body, they may be swamped by this “false” RF demodulated signal. These “false” signals interfere with the body’s regulation at all levels from inside cells up to major sense organ inputs to the brain.”  

“As pulse signals contain all the harmonics of the pulse frequency, this raises the chance that one or more bio-active frequencies will be present within the signals. The current GSM signals have basic pulse repetition frequencies that are at or near known bio-active frequencies. Up to this point research has looked for a link between the RF field strength (SAR) and the effects. There are now well documented effects of weak magnetic fields at 8.3 and 217Hz on nerves.,,,,,,”

…..”All the effects appear to be worse as the frequency is raised. A serious side effect of exposure at frequencies above 150 Mhz, (that is VHF and above), is that body parts can become resonant absorbers, which raises the amount of energy taken in, and reduces the threshold exposure level at which effects are seen.”

“The range of variation of human “size” of hand, arm, leg etc within gender and age groups explains in part why some people are more affected than others.”

“All the above has been widely known for some 40 years, as these effects were first documented by Russian scientists from the late 1950s onward.”

http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_emf-omega-news_17-12-03.html

Policy Making Needs to Be Holistic–What are the Connections? September 8, 2006

Posted by healthyself in Bioeffects, Biological Effects, Blogroll, Cell phone industry, Cell phone safety, Cell Phones, Circadian rhythms, Decision Making, Electrical Surges, Electromagnetic pollution, Electromagnetic waves, Electrosensitivity, Electrosmog, ELF, EMF Research, EMF's, EMR, Environment, Global Warming, Government's role, Health related, High Frequencies, high voltage transmission lines, Legal Issues, Lifestyle, Long Term Health Risks, Low Frequencies, Microwave exposure, mobile telephones, Non Profit Organizations, Politics, Public Policy, Pulsed Radiation, Quantum Physics, radiation, Risk of Disease, Safety, transmission, W/Kg, watts, Waves, WiFi.
add a comment

“Regardless of the strategy ultimately adopted to address potential risks associated with global warming, the issue is ushering in a new phase of policymaking. Political leaders and citizens-at-large must increasingly cope with risk and uncertainty as part of policymaking. For example, debate over the risks associated with pesticides, electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and asbestos used for building insulation involve much the same issues of scientific uncertainty and economic trade-offs as does global warming. Such issues necessitate a more sophisticated political debate and an increased sensitivity to the limitations of science and the importance of economics.”

“One lesson from the ongoing debates over risk and uncertainty is that, in general, policies to address risks posed by potential environmental changes should not be developed in isolation. Although it is politically tempting to respond to a particular crisis—whether it be the energy crisis, the toxic crisis, or the EMF crisis—policies oriented towards “solving” a single environmental problem tend to be expensive and ineffective. A good case in point is the federal Superfund program, which, despite targeting billions of dollars on a limited number of toxic sites, has probably purchased less environmental health and safety than a broader-based program to reduce ongoing toxic emissions would have achieved.”

http://www.reason.org/ps167.html

States Not Permitted to Control EMF’s September 7, 2006

Posted by healthyself in Bioeffects, Biological Effects, Blogroll, Cancer Protection, Cell phone industry, Cell phone safety, Cell phone towers, Cell Phones, Communication, Decision Making, Electromagnetic pollution, Electromagnetic waves, Electrosensitivity, Electrosmog, ELF, Emergency Medicine, EMF Research, Employees, EMR, Environment, Flagpoles, Government's role, High Frequencies, high voltage transmission lines, HOuseholds, Immune system, Inner Agitation, Legal Issues, Lifestyle, Long Term Health Risks, Low Frequencies, Men's Health, Microwave exposure, Mitigation, mobile telephones, Monitoring, Non Profit Organizations, Parenting, Police Officers, Public Policy, Pulsed Radiation, radiation, Risk Factor, Risk of Disease, Safe Levels, School administrators, Teenagers, Transfer, transmission, W/Kg, watts, Who is Affected?, Workplace.
add a comment

“Although some local and state governments have enacted rules and regulations about human exposure to RF energy in the past, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Federal Government to control human exposure to RF emissions. In particular, Section 704 of the Act states that, “No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.” Further information on federal authority and FCC policy is available in a fact sheet from the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at www.fcc.gov/wtb.”

http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#8a

30% of Childhood Cancer Due to Magnetic Fields September 6, 2006

Posted by healthyself in Bioeffects, Biological Effects, Birth Defects, Blogroll, Brain Cancer, Cancer, Cancer Protection, Cell phone industry, Cell phone safety, Cell Phones, Children's health, Death, DNA, Electromagnetic pollution, Electromagnetic waves, Electrosensitivity, Electrosmog, EMF Research, EMF's, Employees, EMR, Environment, Epidemiologists, Hand Portables, Health related, High Frequencies, high voltage transmission lines, HOuseholds, Hz, Kids, Lack of Concentration, Leukemia, Lifestyle, Long Term Health Risks, Low Frequencies, Men's Health, MHz, Microwave exposure, miscarriages, mobile telephones, Parenting, Public Policy, Pulsed Radiation, radiation, Research, Risk of Disease, School administrators, School Boards, Schools, Stress, Teenagers, transmission, Tumors, VDT, W/Kg, watts, Waves, Who is Affected?, WiFi, Women's Health.
1 comment so far

Maggie Hannegan is a Director if Corporate Relations with the American
Cancer Society.

On Friday Aug. 25th, 2006, she emailed Dr. David O. Carpenter, at the
Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany in New York.
I have permission to pass this very important communication to you.

Dear Dr. Carpenter:

I have been fielding questions from a number of individuals concerned
about cancer and electromagnetic sensitivity and your name came up as a
resource.
Obviously, I am not a doctor or health specialist, but due to the fact I
work at ACS I get many questions about cancer and causes of cancer. The
following quote was attributed to you…is this in fact your finding?
Thank you.

“The International Agency for Research on Cancer – part of the WHO and
the leading international organisation on the disease – classes the
electromagnetic smog as a “possible human carcinogen”. And Professor
David Carpenter, dean of the School of Public Health at the State
University of New York, told The Independent on Sunday last week that it
was likely to cause up to 30 per cent of all childhood cancers. A report
by the California Health Department concludes that it is also likely to
cause adult leukaemia, brain cancers and possibly breast cancer and
could be responsible for a 10th of all miscarriages”

Dr. Carpenter responded:
The quote is essentially correct. In the Winter, 1988, issue
of Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, I and Dr. Anders Ahlbom
published a short report entitled “Power lines and cancer: Public health
and policy implications.” In that report we calculated on the basis of
the study by Savitz et al. (1988) that if his results applied to the
the rest of the country (his study was only in Denver) that 10-15% of
childhood cancer was caused by power line fields. We also noted that
there are many other sources of exposure to magnetic fields, such as
appliances and exposures in schools etc., and that these exposures
should contribute about equally to those from the power lines. This has
been translated by some to say that up to 30% of all childhood cancer is
due to magnetic fields.
If you use these calculations I would appreciate having them put into the context in which they were proposed. Thanks for your interest.
David Carpenter