Cardiac Arrhythmias - The Missed Cause

If you've looked at the research regarding cardiac arrhythmias then you might have noticed that all the doctors and researchers are focused on the heart and the nodes that control heart function, however, Dr. Bergman explains the one thing most everyone is missing... The Autonomic Nervous System.
[www.youtube.com]

Go thru the comments and replies to the comments.
Here is one that stood out to me below.

Jeff Nickoloff, this worked for me - get rid of all your wireless gadgets and away from the EMF's (electromagnetic frequencies/fields). The EMF's (microwaves) CAUSE Afib. My first cardioversion reversed in about 10days but I didn't know then that the Smart Meter put on the house could cause Afib. The 2nd cardioversion worked and I'm staying away from EMF's as much as possible. It's now been 9 months and as long as I'm away from EMF's I'm ok. That means wired computer, 3G flip fone, analog electric meter - absolutely NO Smart Meter (check out "Take back your Power" & a newly formed group called "In-Power") And don't believe anyone that tells you - 'The science isn't in yet' 'There is no research to prove it'. They are lying. All the studies done by Independent scientists show very clearly the dangers of EMF's/microwaves. Just to get you started here's a link I suggest you really listen to what Barrie Trower has to say about microwaves (EMF's) [www.youtube.com] This one is about take back your power & in power movement & I will confess I haven't yet listened to it. [www.youtube.com] This is a 1972 (yes - '72) Navy medical research into wireless warfare [www.youtube.com] Good luck to you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2018 12:31AM by afibbers.

It's utterly impossible to escape EMF unless you build a lead-lined shelter deep underground and never come out.

Everyone on the planet is exposed to numerous sources of EMF from the day they were conceived until the day they die. Nevertheless, only 5% of the population has afib. Explain that.

I have worked on this extensively. I am very EMF sensitive. I used to be a computer tech so my guess is this helped lead to this.

(Been a while since I've been on the forum :-) and was shocked to see this right off.)

There are a lot of good books out there by those that have found ways to work with this problem...

I knew I had this problem for years but stupidly still used my cell phone at times extensively - couldn't figure out why my PACs would get so bad at times....my dear hub is who reminded me that it was probably my cell phone that was bothering me and he was right.

Just think I'd have it on in my purse in a grocery cart so very near my heart and then when I'd text I'd do it near my heart. Now mind you I don't use WiFi, I'm hard wired for the home phone - I've even put up shields in my bedroom to offset my neighbor's WiFi...but I was totally stupid about my phone.

So...I traded it in on one that can be hard wired to text and call on...Motorolas can do that - the latest Samsung Galaxy 8 can as well. I did the same for my tablet...the Samsung tablet can do that. You get a USB device that hooks to an ethernet cable.

I use Netgear Powerline adapters for ethernet connection where I want it. Now I've read of dirty electricity from these so I always unplug them before going to bed.

I have a couple of meters to help me discover issues within the house. By the way the one goes absolutely nuts if it's anywhere near a cell phone..

I had stopped using a microwave about 3 years ago when I used a meter and found that there was strong radiation at least 8 feet away.

We even fixed our Smart TV so that WiFi was totally off...you can't just turn it off or use Ethernet...my meter still went off...we had to actually remove the WiFi module from the TVs circuit board.

I recently purchased a new laser printer that doesn't have WiFi...very, very difficult to find. Got a good deal because of that. It's a dinosaur.

Ditto with my new Flex 4 laptop - has an ethernet port...many of the new laptops do not especially once that "flexes" as this one does. I tried adding a USB device to it and it sent the fan into a tizzy sending out EMF...

I use a hard wired keyboard, mouse and display so that my laptop is about 4' away. Hard drives on laptops put out a great deal of EMF.

When I'm not using a device, I frequently unplug it - by the way all of this brought my electric bill down - devices like lamps still use electricity when turned off.

I checked my walls - esp my bedroom walls and found many dirty electricity areas...I now turn off my outlets in the adjoining bathroom unless I'm using them. I also changed my TV configuration so it doesn't use a DVR - that was sending all kinds of dirty electricity right by my bed...

My husband's and my cell phones are always forwarded when we are home and we don't turn them on in the car unless absolutely needed - so we miss calls at times - so what ???? If I use my cell to check on something - I'll turn it on - get where I need to and then put it right back on airplane mode. It's always on airplane mode otherwise. If I use it as a phone, I make sure I turn off mobile data..the mobile date adds a great deal of radiation... I never have location on - that works even if you have airplane mode on.

By the way if you turn off WiFi you still may have WiFi Direct which does not get turned off then. In fact many devices do not have a setup to turn off WiFi Direct which is constantly looking to connect to a cell phone, etc.

This has been a huge journey for me. It's difficult when I go into places like restaurants that have WiFi plus guests with cell phones...I try to find spots where I'm not so bothered. Otherwise I just live with the miserable PACs. If I'm around WiFi and cell long enough my leg muscles will get incredibly tense. It's almost comical because eventually I'll walk like a soldier.

Going to see a doctor is terrible now. I saw my cardiologist recently and his office had 13 WiFi sources...this was not counting all the patients' cell phones. As soon as I entered the building my heart went nuts...... I can't even have an EKG - I almost go out of rhythm from it. I can actually feel the electricity... I once wore a monitor - I can't tell you how many times I went out of rhythm from that - the nurse told me to tuck it in my bra.....yikes right at my heart...I eventually figured it out and took it off after about 6 days...it was a 30 day monitor. Believe me they had enough from those 6 days :-).

Anyone that remembers Theresau from the past knows I'm extremely pro-magnesium, have had 3 ablations - first with Natale...I've done it all. I've just kept plugging along still trying to remove as many triggers as possible.

Afibbers - Thanks for revisiting this. You may recall the previous posts on EMFs, electropollution or electromagnetic radiation and the many potential, adverse health consequences. If not, just type in Electropollution and you'll find them at the advanced search feature. The most recent, pointing out the papers by Martin Pall, PhD on the topic....

Pall has discovered no less than 26 papers showing that EMFs work by activating voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs), which are located in the outer membrane of your cells. Once activated, they allow a tremendous influx of calcium into the cell — about 1 million calcium ions per second per VGCC.

Think about what that means in terms of Afib… an overload of intracellular calcium… (blocking the function of magnesium!!!)

Even if you don't develop AF from the calcium overload... imagine what that overload does to arterial tissue over time...
as just one example.

The earlier posts on Electropollution go into exactly what you've brought up here. As for sensitivities, just like food sensitivities and such...not everyone is going to feel the effects but there are many who do go into Afib with too much EMF exposure. I've corresponded with several who found relief by using the various grounding pads and and getting rid of Smart Meters, etc.

The focus here should be "awareness" that electromagnetic radiation has the potential to cause multiple health issues including AF and while not everyone develops AF, it still is a concern overall.

So it's not smart or safe to assume that EMFs don't cause health problems because they do. European studies are far more abundant as are safety precautions and restrictions than here in the US. In Canada, Magda Havas, PhD has been working for years to help protect children at school from the exposures of microwave radiation and WiFi exposure - just another example of "protective awareness" that much of the public doesn't know about.

Jackie

Looking back at my previous four afib episodes. I noticed my Kindle was nearby (within three ft) when I was sleeping. Not sure if that contributed to the onset of afib.


quote=Jackie]
Afibbers - Thanks for revisiting this. You may recall the previous posts on EMFs, electropollution or electromagnetic radiation and the many potential, adverse health consequences. If not, just type in Electropollution and you'll find them at the advanced search feature. The most recent, pointing out the papers by Martin Pall, PhD on the topic....

Pall has discovered no less than 26 papers showing that EMFs work by activating voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs), which are located in the outer membrane of your cells. Once activated, they allow a tremendous influx of calcium into the cell — about 1 million calcium ions per second per VGCC.

Think about what that means in terms of Afib… an overload of intracellular calcium… (blocking the function of magnesium!!!)

Even if you don't develop AF from the calcium overload... imagine what that overload does to arterial tissue over time...
as just one example.

The earlier posts on Electropollution go into exactly what you've brought up here. As for sensitivities, just like food sensitivities and such...not everyone is going to feel the effects but there are many who do go into Afib with too much EMF exposure. I've corresponded with several who found relief by using the various grounding pads and and getting rid of Smart Meters, etc.

The focus here should be "awareness" that electromagnetic radiation has the potential to cause multiple health issues including AF and while not everyone develops AF, it still is a concern overall.

So it's not smart or safe to assume that EMFs don't cause health problems because they do. European studies are far more abundant as are safety precautions and restrictions than here in the US. In Canada, Magda Havas, PhD has been working for years to help protect children at school from the exposures of microwave radiation and WiFi exposure - just another example of "protective awareness" that much of the public doesn't know about.

Jackie[/quote]

Ok. I’m an EE, so I’ll speak up.

There’s a lot of bunk here. Do you get Afib every time you drive near a high-voltage power line? Get on an airplane for a few hours over 30,000 ft? Solar storms that we can only barely detect in advance? Had an X-ray recently? If you’ve had an ablation, why didn’t the fluoroscope wreak havoc on you?

There are a LOT of sources of radiation. I’m not going to dismiss out of hand the theory that EM can negatively affect us, but there is a Grand Canyon sized gap between that and proof. The Universe is one giant radio - has been since the Big Bang - yet we all evolved in it.

This is an interesting topic.
I like to use an old smart phone to listen to podcasts at night while falling asleep. I put the phone in airplane mode to avoid the EMF. I did notice a couple morning when I woke up with the phone up against my body I felt arthritisy. I made a point to make sure I move the phone a few feet away from me before I fall asleep. It seems to make a difference. In fact I told my wife about how I noticed the difference of how I feel in the morning when the phone is next to my body vs having it a few feet away.
Not scientific, but interesting still.

Quote
wolfpack
Ok. I’m an EE, so I’ll speak up.

There’s a lot of bunk here. Do you get Afib every time you drive near a high-voltage power line? Get on an airplane for a few hours over 30,000 ft? Solar storms that we can only barely detect in advance? Had an X-ray recently? If you’ve had an ablation, why didn’t the fluoroscope wreak havoc on you?

There are a LOT of sources of radiation. I’m not going to dismiss out of hand the theory that EM can negatively affect us, but there is a Grand Canyon sized gap between that and proof. The Universe is one giant radio - has been since the Big Bang - yet we all evolved in it.

Exactly.

And you don't even need to be on a plane or near high-voltage power lines. Consider the sources you cannot avoid:

Television transmitters
Radio transmitters
Other radio (police, fire, taxis, etc - thousands of sources)
Radar (weather, aviation, military)
Microwave repeaters (they're everywhere because they carry the phone networks)
Lightning
Interstellar sources
High-voltage power lines

All the above are fairly high-power sources that overwhelm the bluetooth and wifi you're so worried about. In addition to those we have the low-powered sources everyone is focusing on but still can't avoid no matter how hard you try. You're being radiated by them whether you like it or not:

Cellular networks
Wifi hotspots
Microwave ovens
Computers
Wireless phones
Radio-controlled toys, drones, etc.
..... the list is endless

Wolfpack's comment needs to be repeated:

The Universe is one giant radio - has been since the Big Bang - yet we all evolved in it.

It is an interesting topic. Obviously some, like Theresau, are highly sensitive. There have been others who have had this sensitivity over the years.

Out of curiosity, I bought a measuring instrument with a frequency range from 100 MHz to 8 GHz. In addition, it also measures low frequency Magnetic Fields ranging from 50Hz to 10kHz and low frequency Electric Fields ranging from 50 Hz to 50 kHz.

First, the inverse squared distance law clearly applies. Also a lot of variability of signal, depending on where you are. Decided to measure at my office one day and it had a fairly strong RF signal. Started trying to trace the source and finally walked outside, where the signal continued to get stronger. Noticed they'd put an array of cell antennas on the top of the building next door. Related this to an employee who used to live below the antennas. He had recently moved and a number of unexplained health issues cleared up when he moved. He'd previously noticed that when he traveled away for several weeks, these issues had also gone away, only to return when he came home.

I can't make the case for or against. There is a lot of EMF in the universe, however it clearly isn't the same as what we have introduced in the last 150 years, which is only increasing. I have found that I can do modest things and reduce my nnEMF exposure dramatically.

I can also say that nnEMF exposure is not a trigger for my afib. This does not mean it isn't for someone who is sensitive.

Quote
GeorgeN
Related this to an employee who used to live below the antennas. He had recently moved and a number of unexplained health issues cleared up when he moved. He'd previously noticed that when he traveled away for several weeks, these issues had also gone away, only to return when he came home.

He noticed that when he changed 100 variables, his health issues changed.

Interesting article in Scientific America titled Could certain frequencies of electromagnetic waves or radiation interfere with brain function?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-certain-frequencies/

I believe it would be foolish to say all frequencies and levels of RF have no biological influence on our cells. Certainly our environment does affect our cells.

Here is an interesting YouTube video Students Discover Wi-Fi Routers Inhibit Plant Growth

Research undertaken in Denmark has shown that plants placed too close to Wi-Fi routers have trouble growing. The experiment was undertaken by a group of 9th graders after their proposal to monitor the effects of sleeping by a cell phone was rejected due to the lack of sufficient resources. Undaunted, they switched their focus to the more attainable goal of assessing the impact that router radiation from wi-fi had on plants. The group planted 12containers of garden cress seeds and placed half in a room near two Wi-Fi devices and the other half in a separate room with no such gadgets. For 12 days they monitored the progress of the seeds by photographing, weighing, and measuring them. By the end of the test's duration, the results were clear. The seeds that were placed near the router had died or not grown as usual, while the others had begun to flourish.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2018 11:08AM by gmperf.

Quote
gmperf
I believe it would be foolish to say all frequencies and levels of RF have no biological influence on our cells. Certainly our environment does affect our cells.

I agree, but claims are being made here that RF actually causes afib when no evidence has been presented to support that claim.

Quote
Carey

I believe it would be foolish to say all frequencies and levels of RF have no biological influence on our cells. Certainly our environment does affect our cells.

I agree, but claims are being made here that RF actually causes afib when no evidence has been presented to support that claim.

RF causing afib would be a stretch. I wouldn’t want to live under a cell phone tower, afib or NSR.

I have an old medical book published in 1909. There is a section on Auricular Fibrillation. Were EMFs around then???

Just to amuse you, the book says "Treatment is very unsatisfactory, and during exacerbations of this condition rest in bed and cardiac tonics must be prescribed. Auricular Fibrillation is a very serious state and is usually fatal."

Gill

Quote
Gill
Were EMFs around then???

Yep. They've been around since the Big Bang. We've all been exposed to them all day, every day, for 100% of our lives.

I just wanted to jump in here and say I don't believe this at all...just as I don't think alcohol, chocolate, and caffeine CAUSE afib. In fact, I'll go as far as saying no external factor causes afib. I think research will show someday that afib is a genetic defect.

I'm willing to believe EMFs, alcohol, chocolate, caffeine, diet, etc. *may* affect afibbers that are sensitive to any of these but to say any of them CAUSE afib is a stretch. I just don't buy it. I'm confident that within 20 years we'll discover afib is a genetic defect plain and simple.

Why does someone develop Parkinson's or MS? We would never say EMFs, alcohol, diet, etc. cause it. It's just a "defect" some people have. I believe afib is the same thing.

Travis

Quote
Carey

Yep. They've been around since the Big Bang. We've all been exposed to them all day, every day, for 100% of our lives.

When I stood in the shadow of the moon last August and saw, for the first time, what the corona of a main sequence star REALLY is I can say for certain that your WiFi Router ain’t squat! I wish I could describe it in detail, but imagine a spherical stream of white hot, dancing “tentacles” reaching 20 solar radii outwards from the center of our little home in the Universe. And this happens billions and billions (nod to Dr. Sagan) times over in the whole of Creation.

It’s big, folks.

Travis:

Well I have to chime in here "you say that no external factor causes AF". An increase in my thyroid meds caused me to become hyper, too much thyroid hormone can cause heart problems like AF, which it did for me. When people have any heart operations, many get AF afterwards, it happened to my husband, he never had any AF before that episode.

I am not sure about EMFs, I agree with you that AF is genetic, my mother had AF, I have two brothers neither one ever had an episode of AF but I do. I live in the country I have a garden and there are electric wires that are overhead, I am out there Spring, Summer and Fall, maybe just maybe, who knows. We moved here in 1977, I got AF in about 1998.

Liz

Quote
Elizabeth
Well I have to chime in here "you say that no external factor causes AF". An increase in my thyroid meds caused me to become hyper, too much thyroid hormone can cause heart problems like AF, which it did for me.

Yes, but the majority of people with hyperthyroidism don't have afib. Why not?

I think Travis is exactly right. You have to have the underlying disease* first, and it's almost certainly genetic. If you have the underlying disease then other things like hyperthyroidism, extreme sports, sleep apnea, etc. can lead to afib. This pattern is seen with many diseases where if you have the underlying genetic factors then disease X is likely to affect you, but there may be external factors that influence whether you actually get it, at what age, and how severely.

* That underlying disease has a name; it's called atrial myopathy.

As in external factors leading to particular epigenetic expression?

Quote Carey:

Yes, but the majority of people with hyperthyroidism don't have afib. Why not?

Let me enlighten you: I had Graves disease for a few years, (hyperthyroidism) and never got AF so you are essentially correct, then I had my thyroid nuked and went on Synthroid for about 5 years without any problems. Feeling rather tried I increased my meds which led to my AF so higher synthroid tabs not hyperthyroidism caused my AF., which in any event is an outside variable causing AF.

Liz

You need the right meters...for checking WiFi, Cell, and the like the Cornet meter is considered to be the best...Amazon did carry it.

For magnetic, electric EMF, I have what is called the Tri-Meter...again considered to the best for this. It does not check for WiFi, etc. Amazon carried this as well.

I learned of these from great research.

The radiation from cell phones and WiFi is very high........even if your heart doesn't react, it's not good for you. Ditto with a microwave oven.

Unfortunately, WiFi is becoming commonplace - I had a difficult time getting a thermostat that was't WiFi...again you have to be careful because WiFi Direct will still send out a signal even if you have WiFi turned off.

It makes no sense to me why this is all being allowed... Why do we need a WiFi thermostat........WiFi furnace, WiFi hot water heater. It's not that hard to go to the thermostat and change a setting, etc. We don't need to do this on a phone......yikes.

To clarify… Yes, certainly low-level frequencies Electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) obviously are found naturally everywhere in the environment but are typically relatively low frequencies and also are not usually harmful. However, it’s the manmade EMFs or the EMRs (radiation) microwaves in higher frequencies that are the concern to human health and also animals, bees and birds. . This is fact and not speculation.

My comments and referenced reports are focused on health problems resulting from exposure to these manmade frequencies, still called EMFs, EMRs, Electrosmog and so on but unlike various therapeutic treatments that use low frequency EMFs… such PEMF, TENS units, Earthing and such, the radiation emitted from manmade microwaves can be very damaging depending on the proximity, exposure duration and voltage.

Putting 2 and 2 together for logical connections between manmade EMFs and arrhythmia is not rocket science or absurd speculation but rather, basic biochemistry/physics. As an example, EMFs are related to mitochondrial dysfunction and various search results indicate obvious connections for causing arrhythmia including the aforementioned Pall report on the Voltage Regulated Calcium Channels.

Following are several other potential connections to the increasing incidence of arrhythmia. Just because there few formal studies, doesn’t mean the connection isn’t logical. Failure to recognize the exposure risks can result in more consequences than 'just' arrhythmia but for the our focus.... consider these:

Mitochondrial dysfunction and cardiac arrhythmia
Mitochondria are also critically involved in the homeostatic regulation of cellular cations such as Ca2+, Na+ and K+, disturbance of which can has important consequences for cardiac contractility, energetics and electrical activity [23–25] [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Another supportive overview on mitochondrial dysfunction connected to arrhythmia:
In the last decade, this unrealistic assumption has dramatically changed. Increasing experimental evidence supports the role of mitochondrial malfunction in the origin of arrhythmias (Aon et al., 2003; Akar et al., 2005; O'Rourke et al., 2005; Jeong et al., 2012; Aggarwal and Makielski, 2013). [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]


Unfortunately, this is a study on dogs but confirms the cause for concern.
Magnetism and cardiac arrhythmias.
We conclude that in these preliminary experiments, specific low-level EMFs alter heart rate, AV conduction, and heart rhythm. These effects were mediated through the autonomic nervous system inputs to the heart based on adjunctive effect of autonomic nerve stimulation and the inhibitory action of autonomic blockers.
Cardiol Rev. 2004 Mar-Apr;12(2):85-96. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity [www.nature.com]

Jackie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2018 02:07PM by Jackie.

Thank you for the links, Jackie!
They make a lot of sense to me given my limited understanding of physics, relativity and quanta until someone can explain that polarized EMFs
are not detrimental to cells.
Incidentally, Dr Greger has a video on laptops used on one's lap: [nutritionfacts.org]

Also found that talk by Devra Davis convincing: [www.youtube.com]

Realizing that distance from the source is critical, i haven't found out what that distance ought to be.

What Travis said makes sense to me.

Gill

Quote
Jackie
To clarify… Yes, certainly low-level frequencies Electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) obviously are found naturally everywhere in the environment but are typically relatively low frequencies and also are not usually harmful. However, it’s the manmade EMFs or the EMRs (radiation) microwaves in higher frequencies that are the concern to human health and also animals, bees and birds. . This is fact and not speculation.

Sorry, but that's not established fact at all.

Carey – please cite your references that indicate this is not true…. or explain what you think is not true.

It’s not a novel notion. Many scientists recognized the problems with this exposure years ago. Robert O. Becker, MD wrote The Body Electric…. Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life (1985) which includes a section explaining the health consequences when disruptions to our natural, physiological electrical impulses occur with regularity.

Earlier studies were mostly observations with lab animals; now we have an abundance of human ‘lab animals’ that are presenting with all the classic signs observed in the lab animals from this type of exposure.

Obviously, some individuals are more sensitive and reactive than others… and actually, that’s a benefit for them as they learn early to avoid it… others go on symptom-free and can eventually develop debilitating neurological defects later on in life as just one example.

Here’s some from my trove. As I commented previously, many studies are European because they have taken the threat far more seriously than the US:

Conclusions
BIOINITIATIVE 2012 – CONCLUSIONS Table 1-1
Overall, these 1800 or so new studies report abnormal gene transcription (Section 5); genotoxicity and single-and double-strand DNA damage (Section 6); stress proteins because of the fractal RF-antenna like nature of DNA (Section 7); chromatin condensation and loss of DNA repair capacity in human stem cells (Sections 6 and 15); reduction in free-radical scavengers – particularly melatonin (Sections 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); neurotoxicity in humans and animals (Section 9), carcinogenicity in humans (Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); serious impacts on human and animal sperm morphology and function (Section 18); effects on offspring behavior (Section 18, 19 and 20); and effects on brain and cranial bone development in the offspring of animals that are exposed to cell phone radiation during pregnancy (Sections 5 and 18). This is only a snapshot of the evidence presented in the BioInitiative 2012 updated report.

BIOEFFECTS ARE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED
Bioeffects are clearly established and occur at very low levels of exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation. Bioeffects can occur in the first few minutes at levels associated with cell and cordless phone use. Bioeffects can also occur from just minutes of exposure to mobile phone masts (cell towers), WI-FI, and wireless utility ‘smart’ meters that produce whole-body exposure. Chronic base station level exposures can result in illness.
[www.bioinitiative.org]
[www.bioinitiative.org]


International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health
October 2017, Volume 90, Issue 7, pp 619–628 |
Occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and risk for central nervous system disease: an update of a Danish cohort study among utility workers
. [link.springer.com]


Here’s a couple confirmations fro Swedish studies…

Lennart Hardell, Michael Carlberg, Kjell Hansson Mild. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2006; [Epub ahead of print].
Pooled analysis of two case–control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997–2003.
In short:
The study shows significant increase in the risk for malignant brain tumours. Malignant brain tumour risk for subjects with first use less than 20 years of age, is higher than in older persons. Conclusion: Increased risk was obtained for both cellular and cordless phones, highest in the group with more than 10 years latency period.

Schuz J, Bohler E, Berg G, Schlehofer B, Hettinger I, Schlaefer K, Wahrendorf J, Kunna-Grass K, Blettner M. Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Mar 15;
Cellular phones, cordless phones, and the risks of glioma and meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany).
In short:
Among persons who had used cellular phones for 10 or more years, a doubled risk was found for glioma but not for meningioma.

Lönn S et al. Epidemiology. 15(6):653-659, November 2004.
Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Acoustic Neuroma.
In short:
The study shows an increased relative risk of 3.9 for Acoustic Neuroma after 10 years of mobile phone use.


Jackie

nt



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2018 07:15AM by safib.

Quote
Jackie
Carey – please cite your references that indicate this is not true…. or explain what you think is not true.

We've been down this road before and it's getting well worn. I don't need to cite anything to say you haven't provided sufficient evidence to support your claims. The burden of proof is on you. Just because RF can be shown to have some biological effects doesn't mean it has any effect on afib. Could it? Maybe. Does it? There's no credible evidence to support that claim.

Oh, and natural sources of RF are not all low frequency. They span a wide range of frequencies, especially from interstellar sources that go far higher than man-made sources. Your fundamental error here is thinking that man-made sources are unique. They are not unique.

I think part of the problem with this topic is a forum is a poor vehicle for an in-depth debate.

I wonder why the EU has standards for human EMF exposure.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-01-1190_en.htm

I personally think EMF and EMR can effect health. I think it is dose dependant, exposure period dependant, and frequency dependent.
X-ray exposure is cumulative. Microwaves vibrate water molecules. If a 2.4 or 5 billion cycle per second wave can go through several walls, it can go through a human body. There is natural ratiation that the body deals with. The body can also adapt to higher than normal radiation over the long term in certain conditions. I think living next to a cell tower or having a cell phone against your head a few hours a day falls into a different category than natural exposure. I haven’t studied this topic, but for me I am not sleeping with a cell phone next to my head just to be prudent.

Quote
gmperf
If a 2.4 or 5 billion cycle per second wave can go through several walls, it can go through a human body.

I agree with the gist of your post so don't take this as disputing it. I'm not. However, one little niggling point....

Actually, bluetooth, which is 2.4 GHz, is notoriously unable to penetrate the human body. I learned that when I bought a bluetooth HR monitor for biking. The monitor was on my chest and the receiver was in my back pocket. The result was a complete inability to connect. The signals are blocked by the first few centimeters of flesh, so unable to reach the heart at all.

But I also would not live under high-tension power lines, high-power radio transmitters, or sleep with a cell phone next to my head. Just prudent, as you said.

RF attenuates very rapidly in a conductive Medium like water. And we are mostly water. It’s really the field strength that is the issue rather than the frequency, although high-frequency and high-strength is more dangerous (think UV and sunburn).

The "uniqueness" of man made EMFs and is now commonplace so now no longer "unique"... but opinions aren't science and the knee-jerk reactions to the science presented is just that... denial because no one wants to consider giving up their gadgets or not sleeping with WiFi and cell phones in the bedroom...or not resting your laptop or iPad on your lap.....so the response is: .... all this talk about EMFs and EMRs is bunk.

My intention was and will remain to create awareness because when the body is exposed to too much of these harmful frequencies there can be health consequences. Lots of focus now on awareness of early exposure to infants onward and the cumulative effect with time.

New organization - Physicians for Safe Technology

Executive Summary: Wireless Technology and Public Health

Digital and wireless devices have provided many benefits, however, we are now realizing that the rapid adoption of this novel technology has not been accompanied by adequate regulation, monitoring or safety precautions.

Widespread use of digital media and near constant exposure to wireless devices has caused increasing concern among scientists, health care professionals, psychologists, educators and the public who are now considering this is not only a public health issue but a looming public health crisis. (11,108) It appears that we are at the same point of emerging science similar to early recognition of health impacts associated with tobacco, asbestos, coal dust and lead. (119) These concerns are amplified by industry proposals for a massive expansion of wireless infrastructure and connectivity.
[mdsafetech.org]

American Academy of Pediatrics Issues New Recommendations to “Reduce Exposure to Cell Phones”
Nation’s largest group of children’s doctors responds to new government study linking cell phone radiation to cancer.
[ehtrust.org]

Jackie

Quote
Jackie
The "uniqueness" of man made EMFs and is now commonplace so now no longer "unique"... but opinions aren't science and the knee-jerk reactions to the science presented is just that... denial because no one wants to consider giving up their gadgets or not sleeping with WiFi and cell phones in the bedroom...or not resting your laptop or iPad on your lap.....so the response is: .... all this talk about EMFs and EMRs is bunk.

That's not why I object to your claims. I object simply because the claims aren't supported by the evidence.

Carey - have you seen the photos that record the radio frequency plume penetration in the brain from cell phone radiation?

Also:

Researchers Conclude Wireless Radiation Causes Cancer After Latest Scientific Findings Announced
National advocacy group calls on major children’s health organizations to promote safe technology in schools with the "Turn It Off 4 Kids" Initiative

Feb. 3, 2015 - PRLog -- The National Association for Children and Safe Technology (NACST) is taking action after two recently published studies indicate there is sufficient evidence demonstrating exposure to wireless radiation, also known as RF-EMF, causes cancer. Wireless routers and devices such as tablets, laptops, baby monitors and cell phones all emit this type of radiation.

NACST is calling on children’s health and cancer prevention organizations to make the issue of children's health and exposure to wireless radiation in educational settings an immediate priority for 2015.

The State of the Science: The Debate is Over

Professor of Oncology Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, and Statistician Michael Carlberg of Orebro University Hospital, Sweden found a 3-fold risk with 25 or more years of cell and cordless phone use in a study published October 2014 in Pathophysiology. Very significant was the finding that people who first used mobile or cordless phones before the age of 20 had the highest risk.

Increased wireless phone use also correlated with lower survival rates for people diagnosed with the most malignant gliomas in a second study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health by the same researchers. Hardell and Carlberg stated, “Due to the relationship with survival, the classification is strengthened.” In both studies, the authors state that RF-EMF should be regarded as a human carcinogen, “requiring urgent revision of current exposure guidelines.”

These two studies followed the July 2014 Occupational and Environmental Medicine Journal publication of the CERENAT case controlled study where French researchers found almost a 3-fold increase in brain cancer with 896 or more hours of lifetime cell phone use.

Based on the accumulation of research demonstrating the health effects from wireless radiation, Professor Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Department of Neuroscience has stated, “the debate is over” on wireless.

“Given the established and emerging science, it only follows that students be provided a safe learning environment, free from wireless radiation,” stated an NACST spokesperson.

Scientists Call for the World Health Organization to Reclassify RF-EMF

In 2011, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF radiation as a Class 2B, “possible human carcinogen.” Since 2011, several of the World Health Organization invited scientists have called for a reclassification to an increased risk level. The abstracts of these 2014 studies state that RF should now be regarded as a “Group 1 Human Carcinogen,” placing it in the same category as tobacco, asbestos and benzene.

Continue:
[www.prlog.org]

Jackie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2018 09:32AM by Jackie.

Quote
Jackie
Carey - have you seen the photos that record the radio frequency plume penetration in the brain from cell phone radiation?

Yes, and it proves nothing. Just because we can observe something doesn't establish a cause and effect.

There's lots of interesting correlational and anecdotal data out there, and a lot of over-reaching claims to go with it, but there simply is no compelling evidence to support the claim that RF causes cancer. Ranking it alongside tobacco, asbestos and benzene is absurd and totally without justification. That's just alarmist nonsense. Hundreds of millions of people walk around all day with cell phones, bluetooth ear buds, and assorted other wireless devices glued to their heads all day. Where is the massive epidemic of brain cancer we should be seeing if these claims are even a little bit true? There should be some clear epidemiological evidence by now, so where is it?

Notice the dodgy language -- "several of the World Health Organization invited scientists have called for." Oh? Like who? Where did they call for this and what do they base it on? Vague language like that is a huge red flag that somebody is just making stuff up.

Everything you quoted above came from an activist organization dedicated to an anti-wireless agenda. Sorry, but I don't consider the writings of activist organizations to be science. Find studies by real scientists in real peer-reviewed journals that actually show a cause-effect relationship and we'll talk.

I believe there are a million reasons why we get AF....WHY someone who smokes and drinks to excess and has a most unhealthy diet lives to a ripe old age and dies of natural causes.
Why someone who treats their body like a temple, eats well, sleeps well, keeps fit, lives a calm and peaceful life, gets AF, and down the track suffers a devastating stroke and dies. I’ve known both in my life.
I have known the same outcomes from cancer, losing my son at 21 years of age, fit, healthy, happy, looking forward to a long and successful life.
There are no single reasons why we do or don’t and the answers, like our lives, are complex.
The best we can do is continue to discuss and listen and hope we can one day discover just what is it that predisposes one’s susceptability to certain conditions.
Each of us is different, and your unique trigger may not be mine but with new discoveries every day it may be someone will find the magic bullet.
Maybe not in my lifetime, but hopefully in yours.

Carey - Just a few from my collection of studies on EMF exposure risk and that it is definitely a cause for concern…


30 minutes exposure to 4G cell phone radiation affects brain activity….

Clin Neurophysiol. 2014 Feb;125(2):277-86. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.07.018. Epub 2013 Sep 4.
The alteration of spontaneous low frequency oscillations caused by acute electromagnetic fields exposure. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Check the graphics at this link on the exposure impact [www.prlog.org]

Abstract Title:
Mobile phones and head tumours. The discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epidemiological studies - how do they arise?

Abstract Source:
Environ Health. 2011 Jun 17;10(1):59. Epub 2011 Jun 17. PMID: 21679472
CONCLUSION: our analysis of the literature studies and of the results from meta-analyses of the significant data alone shows an almost doubling of the risk of head tumours induced by long-term mobile phone use or latency.

Pathophysiology. 2013 Apr;20(2):123-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.03.001. Epub 2013 May 7.
PMID: 23664410
Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen.

Jackie

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

METHODS:

We designed a controllable near-field LTE RF-EMF exposure environment. Eighteen subjects participated in a double-blind, crossover, randomized and counterbalanced experiment including two sessions (real and sham exposure). The radiation source was close to the right ear. Then the resting state fMRI signals of human brain were collected before and after the exposure in both sessions. We measured the amplitude of low frequency fluctuation (ALFF) and fractional ALFF (fALFF) to characterize the spontaneous brain activity.

Quote: The radiation source was close to the right ear-----most people use their cell phones on speaker, they do not hold it close to their ear.

L

All very interesting but I can find an even larger number of studies that contradict them. As I said, there is no conclusive evidence that RF causes cancer, afib, or anything else.

You are saying that they dodgy work. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

It's not difficult finding other studies saying virtually the opposite - especially the ones sponsored by industry.
I noticed a disclaimer in iphones' settings re radiation.

Yes, of course, it's in the best interest of the industry to keep the negatives as obscure as possible.

Example:

Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies

Data synthesis
Of 59 studies, 12 (20%) were funded exclusively by the telecommunications industry, 11 (19%) were funded by public agencies or charities, 14 (24%) had mixed funding (including industry), and in 22 (37%) the source of funding was not reported. Studies funded exclusively by industry reported the largest number of outcomes, but were least likely to report a statistically significant result: The odds ratio was 0.11 (95% confidence interval, 0.02–0.78), compared with studies funded by public agencies or charities. This finding was not materially altered in analyses adjusted for the number of outcomes reported, study quality, and other factors.

Conclusions: The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]


Int J Occup Environ Health
. 2015 Jan-Mar; 21(1): 49–52.
doi: 10.1179/2049396714Y.0000000097 PMCID: PMC4273519

A new method for scoring financial conflicts of interest
S V M Maharaj

Abstract
Background:
There is a large and consistent body of evidence showing that research sponsored by for-profit industries tends to have pro-industry conclusions in comparison with similar research or re-analyses not funded by industry. Disclosure of financial conflicts via statements is presently the standard method for notification of potential biases. However, many journals are not consistent in publishing financial conflicts of interest (FCoI) statements. Furthermore, even when divulged, disclosure merely shifts the burden of evaluating conflicts to readers and the general public. Moreover, there has been an absence of a means of quantifying FCoI.

Objectives:
To propose a solution for the question: What are we doing about FCoI that continue to compromise the integrity of the scientific enterprise?

Methods: The FCoI Scale was developed for scoring and comparing FCoI and describing potential biases.

Results:
The FCoI Scale consists of a score that may be expressed in whole numbers and decimal fractions, correlated to descriptive terms for potential biases and examples of financial conflicts at 11 levels.

Conclusions:
The FCoI score (FCoIS) provides a means for a more uniform and concise method of disclosure compared to statements, while at the same time permitting flexibility. It encourages the disclosure of relevant information and transparency in the reporting of financial conflicts. The FCoI Scale has the potential to become the standard basis for measuring, reporting, and comparing financial conflicts, suitable for disciplines in science, medicine, and beyond.