Health risks associated with wireless technologies

This report, or at least the summary, is worth reading and reflecting upon.

[www.bioinitiative.org]

Hans

You may be interested in the Wikipedia comments on this 2007 report:

The BioInitiative Report is a report on the relationship between the electromagnetic fields (EMF) associated with powerlines and wireless devices and health. It was self-published online, without peer review, on August 31, 2007, by a group "of 14 scientists, researchers, and public health policy professionals". The BioInitiative Report states that it is an examination of the controversial health risks of electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation.[1] The BioInitiative is now an ongoing process and some updated BioInitiative material was published in a journal in an issue guest-edited by one of the members of the group.[2] It has been heavily criticized by independent and governmental research groups for its lack of balance.

There's more, including what several official government agencies have to say about the report, at:

[en.wikipedia.org]

Gordon

Gordon,

The report I am referring to is the 2012 edition, not the 2007 edition. A lot has been learned about the adverse effects of electromagnetic radiation in the intervening 5 years. And also, the report was never meant to be "balanced" or to reflect the view of the industry providing this polluting and dangerous technology.

Hans

Recommended reading for background science information are these two books by orthopedic surgeon Robert O. Becker, MD:

-- The Body Electric -- Electromagnetism and The Foundation of Life (1985) [www.amazon.com]

-- Cross Currents -- The Perils of Electropollution, The Promise of Electromedicine (1990) [www.amazon.com]

Hans,

Regarding your statement that the report "never was meant to be balanced or to reflect the view of the industry providing this polluting and dangerous technology" ; that remarkable statement very clearly communicates your viewpoint on the subject.

Balance can be a good thing though, and I hope you will allow a few statements from the vast majority of people who would not characterize the cell phone industry as "polluting and dangerous."

The following link is from the National Center for Biotechnology Information; their stated goal WAS to provide a balanced view of the subject. The NCBI is funded by the US Government, their conclusion was "the preponderance of published epidemiologic and experimental findings do not support the supposition that in vivo or in vitro exposures to such fields are carcinogenic."

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

EB

EB,

I don't really think I or anyone else can add much to this 1479 page report compiled by 30 experts in the field of electromagnetic radiation. Certainly your reference to a single 2003 report by an "independent" consultant does not "cut the mustard". Anyway, I have a very good yardstick for deciding who is likely to be telling the truth on any controversial subject. It is called "follow the money". The experts compiling the Bioinitiative report through years of research and hard work has absolutely nothing to gain by publishing their work. On the other hand, the wireless industry has everything to gain by publishing their own biased information and virulently attacking science-supported, unbiased information.

Hans

Hans,

The NCBI is a US Government funded institution; it is not sponsored by or for the cell phone industry. I haven't read all the links but in what I read, it includes pro and con information on the health effects of RF and EMF radiation.

The U. N. Telecom Agency reported a couple of months back that the world has approximately 6 billion cell phones in use; almost one for each inhabitant. So if indeed these things are lethal we should start seeing the negative health effects pretty soon; the world is saturated.

When you talk about 'following the money', consider this; we live in a very litigious society, especially here in the US. If a big money industry rolls out a product that kills people, the lawsuits start before the patient is even buried. (remember cigarettes?)

Perhaps these experts should file suit; they have not done so yet. Why would that be? Could it be that they have a theory that is unproven in the real world?

If people start dying, or getting sick, the cellular industry will pay. That is not happening so far-

EB

Hans: Apparently the new report is really a rehash of the old report with the major change placing more emphasis on radio frequencies but leaving power lines unchanged.

"The 2012 Update

The Bioinitiative Report was updated in 2012. Some of the chapters were revised, some have new chapters now offered alongside the original. The changes appear to be mainly to do with radiofrequencies, with the conclusions on power frequencies seeming fairly similar to the original."

And, the new report appears to be as roundly criticized by official agencies as the 2007 version. Another wannabe organization yelling wolf?

Here's a link to some agency comments on the 2012 update:

[www.telecomindiaonline.com]

Gordon

Gordon… The threats are real and Afibbers, especially, need to be aware of the interferences that EMRs cause in the body’s electrical system. I don’t know if you were reading a while back (Sept 2011) when we were posting on the health risks of EMFs and EMRs overall but especially to the heart, thyroid, and brain, but if you get into the physiology of it, it's hard to sanction defending the industry's coverup on this issue.

Integrative Cardiologist, Stephen Sinatra, points out that there is now a diagnostic term for affected people: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity. It’s real and it’s prevalent… but the cause is not often recognized immediately nor do people connect the symptoms to the source. As pointed out, a major symptom of EH is insomnia... the prescriptions for sleep aids have escallated. Big Pharma is not complaining. Doctors are not tuned into asking about electropollution in homes and bedrooms so just write the script. People who are highly stressed with accompanying ANS imbalances, elevated cortisol levels along with adrenal burnout are apt to be throwing gasoline on the fire by constant exposure to electropollution. Since they are misdiagnosed, the reports of escalating conditions related to EH miss detection and reporting.

Dr. Sinatra's efforts are now focused on these very real complications of health by teaming up with Magda Havas, PhD and others to educate the public and concerned public officials about the risks of continual exposure from what can be loosely termed, “electropollution or electrosmog.” [www.magdahavas.com] - check the video clip Dr. Havas presented in 2011 about the rapid-aging effects from electropollution.

This group points to European restrictions and safety measures as examples and guidelines that help protect the public’s health much more stringently than is done here in the US because of the obvious reasons. Once again, this is a money-trail, revenue issue that suppliers of related services and equipment are not likely to risk sacrificing by informing the public of the accompanying health risks. It's up to individuals to understand why the risks are real and take steps to minimize exposure. Once you are damaged, it's can be difficult to remedy.

The denial factor looms large. Wireless conveniences are have become lifestyle mainstays. People are totally addicted to the technology and even if they are aware of the risks to themselves and their children, you still see them attached to their "smart" phones 24/7.


Past posts–
Part 1 Electropollution – Cardiovascular Risk?
[www.afibbers.org]

Part 2 Electropollution (Toxic Frequencies) - Health Risks Identified
[www.afibbers.org]

Jackie

E.B.,

The problem with cell phone radiation is that it causes brain cancer, which has a long incubation period (30 years). We will start seeing an epidemic of brain cancer starting in the late 2020's since by then many people will have been using cell phones for 30 years. This will be worse for those who started using cell phones when they were young.

And, brain cancer isn't a fun thing to get.

Of course, our society is so dependent on cell phones and wireless technology, we can't give it up now, in spite of the coming brain cancer epidemic.

Jackie: Do you suppose they went through all of this when AM radio first became prevalent? Communications are only going to increase as we learn to use more of the spectrum and the whole bandwith will become more saturated with various stronger signals.

I think that in peripheral issues like this the old adage of following the money trail applies. I understand the cellphone and power companies defending themselves. What I don't understand is what the Biominitiative folks get out of it and I don't believe for a minute that they're all altruistic. Where does their funding come from? Something doesn't smell right with this whole study.

Maybe they have patents on tin cans and string so that when we're all forced to go back to communicating that way they'll make a fortune.

Gordon

Gordon - your intuition is undoubtedly correct. In such instances, typically someone benefits somehow or is strongly influenced by a higher power with vested interests. As for concern over AM radio waves, I doubt if anyone was concerned back then over long term-health consequences because it's a different form or level of frequency. Frequencies can be a good, therapeutic thing. All depends... We've talked about this previously.

But the fact is...no one will ever want to consider doing without wireless technology....even when the it becomes well-known, common knowledge that it causes this or that health problem. We're hooked. People have to decide on their own how to limit their exposure and preserve their health. We do have choices. Educating the public should be a civic duty which just isn't happening outside of the advocacy groups such as Drs. Sinatra and Havas etal and groups involved with remediation for homes, buildings etc. As I said previously, denial is a huge factor.

Be well and Happy New Year!
Jackie