The Real Dangers of Electronic Devices and EMFs


Story at-a-glance

  • Exposure to microwave radiation from cellphones, routers, cordless phones, smart meters, baby monitors and other wireless devices causes massive mitochondrial dysfunction due to free radical damage
  • Excessive free radicals triggered by low-frequency microwave exposure from wireless technologies have been linked to cardiac arrhythmias, anxiety, depression, autism, Alzheimer’s, infertility and more
  • In addition to remediating obvious EMF exposures, strategies that may help reduce the harmful effects of EMFs include optimizing your magnesium level, eating Nrf2-boosting foods and pulsing molecular hydrogen

By Dr. Mercola

I was recently interviewed by Dave Asprey when I visited his Bulletproof lab on Vancouver Island.1 In it, I review the real dangers of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by electronic devices. I will also do a more comprehensive lecture on this topic at Asprey’s Bulletproof Conference October 13 through 15 at the Pasadena Convention Center in Pasadena, California.

Avoiding excessive EMF exposure is an important component of optimizing mitochondrial health. In fact, this is going to be the topic of my next book. Like my latest best-seller, “Fat for Fuel,” which details my metabolic mitochondrial therapy program, I want the book on EMFs to be peer-reviewed by the leading scientists and researchers in the world who understand the truth and are free of industry corruption.

The key is to translate the science into clear and understandable language, and offer practical recommendations on how to remediate the problem. After all, we are swimming in an invisible ocean of EMFs just about everywhere you go these days. It’s near-impossible to avoid microwave exposure completely, but there are ways to reduced it, for sure.

Your Cellphone Is a Major Source of EMF Exposure

As noted by Asprey, his studio is hard-wired, and that’s one simple way to reduce exposure from Wi-Fi. You can also shut your Wi-Fi down whenever you’re not using it, and certainly at night when you’re sleeping. When using your cellphone, use the speaker phone and hold the phone 3 feet away from you, using a selfie stick. I’ve measured the radiation and you decrease your exposure by about 90 percent this way.

When not in use, make sure your cellphone is in airplane mode and/or keep it in a Faraday bag. These are just a few quick examples of how you can protect your health while still living in modern society. I have carefully measured the radiation coming from my phone and even when it is on and not calling someone the radiation doesn’t come down to safe ranges until I am 25 feet away, which is why I keep my phone in airplane mode most of the time and only use it for emergencies or when I am traveling.

It took me awhile to figure this out. I got rid of all the wireless devices and Wi-Fi in my house, yet the EMFs were still high. Then I finally realized that it was my phone (while on) that caused it. My levels dropped below 0.01 volts/meter once I put it in airplane mode. This is a key point. For nearly everyone reading this, the majority of the radiation you’re exposed to is not coming from the outside into your home; it’s coming from the items in your home.

Nonthermal Damage

Most of the radiation we’re exposed to today is microwave radiation, which does include radiation from your microwave oven. If you still have one, I recommend replacing it with a steam convection oven, which will heat your food just as quickly but far more safely. When you turn that microwave oven on, it will expose you to very dangerous microwave radiation at levels that are far in excess of your cellphone. We’re not talking about thermal (heat) damage here. We’re talking about nonthermal damage.

I recently interviewed Martin Pall, Ph.D., who has identified and published several papers describing the molecular mechanisms of how EMFs from cellphones and wireless technologies damage plants, animals and humans.2,3,4,5 Many studies have shown that when you’re exposed to EMFs, intracellular calcium increases. Pall also discovered a number of studies showing that you can block or greatly reduce the effects of EMFs using calcium channel blockers — medication commonly prescribed to patients with heart disease.

This turns out to be a crucial point, because it’s the excess calcium in the cell and the increased calcium signaling that are responsible for a vast majority of the biological effects of EMFs.

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.

Importantly, the cellular membrane is 7 million times more sensitive to EMFs than the charged particles inside and outside of the cells, which are what safety standards are based on. In other words, the safety standards are off by a factor of 7 million!

Advertisement

Liposomal Vitamin C


A Chain Reaction of Harm

When there’s excess calcium in the cell, it increases levels of both nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide. While NO has many beneficial health effects, massively excessive NO reacts with superoxide, forming peroxynitrite, which is an extremely potent oxidant stressor.

Peroxynitrites, in turn, break down to form reactive free radicals, both reactive nitrogen species and reactive oxygen species (ROS), including hydroxyl radicals, carbonate radicals and NO2 radicals — all three of which do damage. Peroxynitrites also do damage all on their own.

So, EMFs are not “cooking” your cells. It’s not a thermal influence. Rather, the radiation activates the VGCCs in the outer cell membrane, which triggers a chain reaction of devastating events that, ultimately, decimates your mitochondrial function and causes severe cellular damage and DNA breaks. It also decimates your cell membranes and cellular proteins. In a nutshell, it dramatically accelerates the aging process.

Common EMF-Related Health Problems

As noted by Asprey, he used to keep his cellphone in a pants pocket on his right leg. He now has 10 percent less bone density in his right femur, which he believes is related to carrying his cellphone there. Needless to say, he no longer carries his phone on his body. Now, since the biological damage is triggered by activation of your VGCCs, it stands to reason that tissues with the highest densities of VGCCs will be more prone to harm.

So, which tissues have the highest concentration of VGCC’s? Your brain, the pacemaker of your heart, your nervous system, retina and male testes. Indeed, studies dating back to the 1950s and ’60s show the nervous system is the organ that is most sensitive to EMFs. Some of these studies show massive changes in the structure of neurons, including cell death and synaptic dysfunction.

When the VGCCs are activated in the brain they release neurotransmitters and neuroendocrine hormones, and elevated VGCC activity in certain parts of the brain has been shown to produce a variety of neuropsychiatric effects. Among the most common consequences of chronic EMF exposure to the brain are: 6

Common heart problems linked to EMF exposure include:

  • Cardiac arrhythmias (associated with sudden cardiac death)
  • Atrial fibrillation / atrial flutter
  • Premature atrial contractions (PACs) and premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), also known as heart palpitations
  • Tachycardia (fast heartbeat) and brachycardia (slow heartbeat)

Many who suffer these conditions are on dangerous drugs. If you have any kind of heart or brain-related condition, you really need to take EMF exposure seriously, and take steps to remediate it. There’s simply no question about it — EMF exposure can trigger these and many other conditions. The drug is not treating the cause of the problem, and if you truly want to get well, you need to address the causes. EMFs may not be the sole contributor, but it’s a significant one that should not be overlooked.

Reproductive Effects and Cancer

EMF exposure may also increase a man’s risk for infertility if he wears his cellphones near his groin and/or uses a laptop on his lap, and a woman’s risk for breast cancer is higher if she tucks her cellphone in her bra. Studies have linked low-level electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure from cellphones to an 8 percent reduction in sperm motility and a 9 percent reduction in sperm viability.7,8

Wi-Fi equipped laptop computers have also been linked to decreased sperm motility and an increase in sperm DNA fragmentation after just four hours of use.9 In regard to breast cancer, the most common location for breast cancer is the upper, outer quadrant. When the cancer is located in the upper, inner quadrant, it’s more likely to be related to cellphone radiation (if you’ve been carrying your phone in your bra).

How to Lower Your Exposure

The first step to lower your exposure would be to identify the most significant sources. Your cellphone is a major source of exposure, as are cordless phones, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth headsets and other Bluetooth-equipped items, wireless mice, keyboards, smart thermostats, baby monitors, smart meters and the microwave in your kitchen. Ideally, address each source and determine how you can best limit their use. For example, remedial interventions could include:

Swapping a wireless baby monitor for a hardwired one
Carrying your cellphone in a bag instead of on your body, and keeping it in airplane mode and/or in a Faraday (shielded) bag or case when not on a call
Turning off your Wi-Fi at night. Even better, don’t use Wi-Fi and switch to wired Ethernet
Using your laptop on a table rather than your lap
Using your cellphone with a headset or on speaker phone, and keeping the phone as far away from your body as possible using a selfie stick. Ideally, use landlines whenever possible
Hardwiring as many devices as possible to avoid Wi-Fi fields. This includes mice, keyboards and printers. Avoid Ethernet over power (EOP), however, as this strategy increases the variability in your power lines, causing dirty electricity. You can partially remediate this with capacitors or filters, but it’s not an ideal solution. EOP is better than Wi-Fi, but not as good as running an Ethernet cable
Installing a Faraday cage (copper- and/or silver-threaded fabric) around your bed. If you live in a high-rise and have neighbors beneath you, place the Faraday fabric on the floor beneath your bed as well. This may significantly improve your sleep quality, as EMFs are known to disrupt sleep
If you have a smart meter, take steps to have it removed and replaced with an old analog meter. If your area is planning on installing them, be proactive in preventing its installation. For more information about this and guidance on how to go about preventing smart meter installation or getting it reversed, see “InPower: A Mass Action of Liability

To identify EMF sources you might not have considered, it would be a worthwhile investment to buy a microwave meter. The Cornet ED88T10 is likely the best low cost meter out there, but their manual is terrible so you need to watch this video by Lloyd Burrell to learn how to use it.

When I travel, I’ll check the room in which I’m staying to determine the best side of the bed to sleep on. I’ve found there can be a tenfold difference between one side of the bed and the other. The Trifield meter is quite popular, but it’s important to realize that Trifield meters are only good for screening for magnetic fields. Although they measure microwave radiation, they can be very inaccurate and should not be used for that purpose.

Nutritional Intervention

Nutritional intervention can also help reduce the harmful effects of EMFs. It’s not a permanent solution you can use in lieu of remediation, but it can be helpful while you’re implementing more permanent solutions. The first is magnesium, as magnesium is a natural calcium channel blocker. Many are deficient in magnesium to start with, and I believe many may benefit from as much as 1 to 2 grams of magnesium per day.

Increasing Nrf2 is also helpful. NRf2 is a biological hormetic that upregulates superoxide dismutase, catalase and all the other beneficial intercellular antioxidants. It also:

  • Lowers inflammation
  • Improves mitochondrial function
  • Stimulates mitochondrial biogenesis
  • Helps detoxify the body from xenobiotics, carbon-containing toxicants and toxic metals
  • Activates the transcription of over 500 genes in the human genome, most of which have cytoprotective functions. This includes the three genes that encode enzymes required for synthesis of reduced glutathione, which is one of the most important antioxidants produced in your body

You can activate Nrf2 by:

  • Consuming Nrf2-boosting food compounds such as sulforaphane from cruciferous vegetables, foods high in phenolic antioxidants, the long-chained omega-3 fats DHA and EPA, carotenoids (especially lycopene), sulfur compounds from allum vegetables, isothiocyanates from the cabbage group and terpenoid-rich foods
  • High-intensity exercises that activate the NO signaling pathway, such as the NO dump exercise
  • Calorie restriction (such as intermittent fasting)

The Benefits of Molecular Hydrogen

Another helpful supplement is molecular hydrogen. Tyler LeBaron’s website, molecularhydrogenfoundation.org,11 lists several hundred studies relating to hydrogen. You can also find a number of his lectures on YouTube. In summary, molecular hydrogen consists of two atoms of hydrogen, the smallest molecule in the universe, which:

  • Is a neutral molecule that can defuse across any cell membrane, instantly
  • Has no polarity
  • Is a potent, selective antioxidant

Free radicals are actually important; they do serve health functions. The problem is excess free radicals, or the wrong ones. Molecular hydrogen has been shown to target free radicals produced in response to radiation, such as peroxynitrites. Studies have shown molecular hydrogen can mitigate about 80 percent of this damage. The take home message is it can be quite valuable when flying, for example, to counteract the damage caused by gamma rays encountered at 35,000 feet.

Your body actually makes hydrogen gas, about 10 liters a day, which benefits your body. However, when you have a steady state of exposure, you don’t get the other benefits, so you want to pulse it. That’s where you get the benefit. I’ve taken molecular hydrogen tablets on my last few flights, and it worked great. There are a number of different ways to get it, but the most practical way is to take molecular hydrogen tablets.

Once you’re at about 5,000 to 10,000 feet, put the tablet in a small bottle of lukewarm water. Put the cap back on and leave it on while the tablet dissolves to prevent the gas from escaping. Once dissolved, drink it as quickly as possible. The hydrogen gas will continue working for about two hours, so if you’re on a longer flight, you may want to do a second dose halfway through.

Advertisements

Do Cellphones Cause Cancer?


The question of whether cellphones can cause cancer became a popular one after the dramatic increase in cell phone use since the 1990s. Scientists’ main concern is that cell phones can increase the risk of brain tumors or other tumors in the head and neck area – and as of now, there doesn’t seem to be a clear answer.

Cell phones give off a form of energy known as radiofrequency (RF) waves. They are at the low-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum – as opposed to the higher-energy end where X-rays exist – and they emit a type of non-ionizing radiation. In contrast to ionizing radiation, this type does not cause cancer by damaging DNA in cells, but there is still a concern that it could cause biological effects that result in some cancers.

However, the only consistently recognizable biological effect of RF energy is heat. The closer the phone is to the head, the greater the expected exposure is. If RF radiation is absorbed in large enough amounts by materials containing water, such as food, fluids, and body tissues, it produces this heat that can lead to burns and tissue damage. Still, it is unclear whether RF waves could result in cancer in some circumstances.

An iPhone.

Many factors affect the amount of RF energy a person is exposed to, such as the amount of time spent on the phone, the model of the phone, and if a hands-free device or speaker is being used. The distance and path to the nearest cell phone tower also play a role. The farther a way a person is from the tower, the more energy is required to get a good signal on the phone. The same is true of areas where many people are using their phones and excess energy is required to get a good signal.

RF radiation is so common in the environment that there is no way to completely avoid it. Most phone manufacturers post information about the amount of RF energy absorbed from the phone into the user’s body, called the specific absorption rate (SAR), on their website or user manual. Different phones have different SARs, so customers can reduce RF energy exposure by researching different models when shopping for a phone. The highest SAR in the U.S. is 1.6 watts/kg, but actual SAR values may vary based on certain factors.

Studies have been conducted to find a possible link between cell phone use and the development of tumors. They are fairly limited, however, due to low numbers of study participants and risk of recall bias. Recall bias can occur when individuals who develop brain tumors are more predisposed to recall heavier cell phone use than those who do not, despite lack of true difference. Also, tumors can take decades to develop, and given that cell phones have only been in use for about 20 years, these studies are unable to follow people for very long periods of time. Additionally, cell phone use is constantly changing.

Outside of direct studies on cell phone use, brain cancer incidence and death rates have changed little in the past decade, making it even more difficult to pinpoint if cell phone use plays a role in tumor development.

For all book lovers please visit my friend’s website.
URL: http://www.romancewithbooks.com

Do Cellphones Cause Cancer?


The question of whether cellphones can cause cancer became a popular one after the dramatic increase in cell phone use since the 1990s. Scientists’ main concern is that cell phones can increase the risk of brain tumors or other tumors in the head and neck area – and as of now, there doesn’t seem to be a clear answer.

Cell phones give off a form of energy known as radiofrequency (RF) waves. They are at the low-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum – as opposed to the higher-energy end where X-rays exist – and they emit a type of non-ionizing radiation. In contrast to ionizing radiation, this type does not cause cancer by damaging DNA in cells, but there is still a concern that it could cause biological effects that result in some cancers.

However, the only consistently recognizable biological effect of RF energy is heat. The closer the phone is to the head, the greater the expected exposure is. If RF radiation is absorbed in large enough amounts by materials containing water, such as food, fluids, and body tissues, it produces this heat that can lead to burns and tissue damage. Still, it is unclear whether RF waves could result in cancer in some circumstances.

An iPhone.

Many factors affect the amount of RF energy a person is exposed to, such as the amount of time spent on the phone, the model of the phone, and if a hands-free device or speaker is being used. The distance and path to the nearest cell phone tower also play a role. The farther a way a person is from the tower, the more energy is required to get a good signal on the phone. The same is true of areas where many people are using their phones and excess energy is required to get a good signal.

RF radiation is so common in the environment that there is no way to completely avoid it. Most phone manufacturers post information about the amount of RF energy absorbed from the phone into the user’s body, called the specific absorption rate (SAR), on their website or user manual. Different phones have different SARs, so customers can reduce RF energy exposure by researching different models when shopping for a phone. The highest SAR in the U.S. is 1.6 watts/kg, but actual SAR values may vary based on certain factors.

Studies have been conducted to find a possible link between cell phone use and the development of tumors. They are fairly limited, however, due to low numbers of study participants and risk of recall bias. Recall bias can occur when individuals who develop brain tumors are more predisposed to recall heavier cell phone use than those who do not, despite lack of true difference. Also, tumors can take decades to develop, and given that cell phones have only been in use for about 20 years, these studies are unable to follow people for very long periods of time. Additionally, cell phone use is constantly changing.

Outside of direct studies on cell phone use, brain cancer incidence and death rates have changed little in the past decade, making it even more difficult to pinpoint if cell phone use plays a role in tumor development.

Source:http://www.dana-farber.org

 

For all book lovers please visit my friend’s website.
URL: http://www.romancewithbooks.com

AS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ADVANCES, HERE ARE FIVE TOUGH PROJECTS FOR 2018


FOR ALL THE hype about killer robots, 2017 saw some notable strides in artificial intelligence. A bot called Libratus out-bluffed poker kingpins, for example. Out in the real world, machine learning is being put to use improving farming and widening access to healthcare.

But have you talked to Siri or Alexa recently? Then you’ll know that despite the hype, and worried billionaires, there are many things that artificial intelligence still can’t do or understand. Here are five thorny problems that experts will be bending their brains against next year.

The meaning of our words

Machines are better than ever at working with text and language. Facebook can read out a description of images for visually impaired people. Google does a decent job of suggesting terse replies to emails. Yet software still can’t really understand the meaning of our words and the ideas we share with them. “We’re able to take concepts we’ve learned and combine them in different ways, and apply them in new situations,” says Melanie Mitchell, a professor at Portland State University. “These AI and machine learning systems are not.”

Mitchell describes today’s software as stuck behind what mathematician Gian Carlo-Rota called “the barrier of meaning.” Some leading AI research teams are trying to figure out how to clamber over it.

 One strand of that work aims to give machines the kind of grounding in common sense and the physical world that underpins our own thinking. Facebook researchers are trying to teach software to understand reality by watching video, for example. Others are working on mimicking what we can do with that knowledge about the world. Google has been tinkering with software that tries to learn metaphors. Mitchell has experimented with systems that interpret what’s happening in photos using analogies and a store of concepts about the world.

The reality gap impeding the robot revolution

Robot hardware has gotten pretty good. You can buy a palm-sized drone with HD camera for $500. Machines that haul boxes and walk on two legs have improved also. Why are we not all surrounded by bustling mechanical helpers? Today’s robots lack the brains to match their sophisticated brawn.

Getting a robot to do anything requires specific programming for a particular task. They can learn operations like grasping objects from repeated trials (and errors). But the process is relatively slow. One promising shortcut is to have robots train in virtual, simulated worlds, and then download that hard-won knowledge into physical robot bodies. Yet that approach is afflicted by the reality gap—a phrase describing how skills a robot learned in simulation do not always work when transferred to a machine in the physical world.

The reality gap is narrowing. In October, Google reported promising results in experiments where simulated and real robot arms learned to pick up diverse objects including tape dispensers, toys, and combs.

Further progress is important to the hopes of people working on autonomous vehicles. Companies in the race to roboticize driving deploy virtual cars on simulated streets to reduce the time and money spent testing in real traffic and road conditions. Chris Urmson, CEO of autonomous-driving startup Aurora, says making virtual testing more applicable to real vehicles is one of his team’s priorities. “It’ll be neat to see over the next year or so how we can leverage that to accelerate learning,” says Urmson, who previously led Google parent Alphabet’s autonomous-car project.

Guarding against AI hacking

The software that runs our electrical gridssecurity cameras, and cellphones is plagued by security flaws. We shouldn’t expect software for self-driving cars and domestic robots to be any different. It may in fact be worse: There’s evidence that the complexity of machine-learning software introduces new avenues of attack.

Researchers showed this year that you can hide a secret trigger inside a machine-learning system that causes it to flip into evil mode at the sight of a particular signal. The team at NYU devised a street-sign recognition system that functioned normally—unless it saw a yellow Post-It. Attaching one of the sticky notes to a stop sign in Brooklyn caused the system to report the sign as a speed limit. The potential for such tricks might pose problems for self-driving cars.

The threat is considered serious enough that researchers at the world’s most prominent machine-learning conference convened a one-day workshop on the threat of machine deception earlier this month. Researchers discussed fiendish tricks like how to generate handwritten digits that look normal to humans, but appear as something different to software. What you see as a 2, for example, a machine vision system would see as a 3. Researchers also discussed possible defenses against such attacks—and worried about AI being used to fool humans.

Tim Hwang, who organized the workshop, predicted using the technology to manipulate people is inevitable as machine learning becomes easier to deploy, and more powerful. “You no longer need a room full of PhDs to do machine learning,” he said. Hwang pointed to the Russian disinformation campaign during the 2016 presidential election as a potential forerunner of AI-enhanced information war. “Why wouldn’t you see techniques from the machine learning space in these campaigns?” he said. One trick Hwang predicts could be particularly effective is using machine learning to generate fake video and audio.

Graduating beyond boardgames

Alphabet’s champion Go-playing software evolved rapidly in 2017. In May, a more powerful version beat Go champions in China. Its creators, research unit DeepMind, subsequently built a version, AlphaGo Zero, that learned the game without studying human play. In December, another upgrade effort birthed AlphaZero, which can learn to play chess and Japanese board game Shogi (although not at the same time).

That avalanche of notable results is impressive—but also a reminder of AI software’s limitations. Chess, shogi, and Go are complex but all have relatively simple rules and gameplay visible to both opponents. They are a good match for computers’ ability to rapidly spool through many possible future positions. But most situations and problems in life are not so neatly structured.

That’s why DeepMind and Facebook both started working on the multiplayer videogame StarCraft in 2017. Neither have yet gotten very far. Right now, the best bots—built by amateurs—are no match for even moderately-skilled players. DeepMind researcher Oriol Vinyals told WIREDearlier this year that his software now lacks the planning and memory capabilities needed to carefully assemble and command an army while anticipating and reacting to moves by opponents. Not coincidentally, those skills would also make software much better at helping with real-world tasks such as office work or real military operations. Big progress on StarCraft or similar games in 2018 might presage some powerful new applications for AI.

Teaching AI to distinguish right from wrong

Even without new progress in the areas listed above, many aspects of the economy and society could change greatly if existing AI technology is widely adopted. As companies and governments rush to do just that, some people are worried about accidental and intentional harms caused by AI and machine learning.

How to keep the technology within safe and ethical boundswas a prominent thread of discussion at the NIPS machine-learning conference this month. Researchers have found that machine learning systems can pick up unsavory or unwanted behaviors, such as perpetuating gender stereotypes, when trained on data from our far-from-perfect world. Now some people are working on techniques that can be used to audit the internal workings of AI systems, and ensure they make fair decisions when put to work in industries such as finance or healthcare.

The next year should see tech companies put forward ideas for how to keep AI on the right side of humanity. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and others have begun talking about the issue, and are members of a new nonprofit called Partnership on AI that will research and try to shape the societal implications of AI. Pressure is also coming from more independent quarters. A philanthropic project called the Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence Fund is supporting MIT, Harvard, and others to research AI and the public interest. A new research institute at NYU, AI Now, has a similar mission. In a recent report it called for governments to swear off using “black box” algorithms not open to public inspection in areas such as criminal justice or welfare.

California Tries to Cover Up Cellphone Hazards


cell phone dangers

Story at-a-glance

  • Cellphones are used by 91 percent of adults in the U.S., contributing to an overwhelming exposure to electromagnetic radiation as demonstrated in a new study
  • It required a lawsuit to release California’s Environmental Health Investigations’ recommendations for safe cellphone use, containing study summaries suggesting long-term use increases risk of brain cancer
  • Children are at greater risk of health damage since results of exposure to electromagnetic radiation may take upward of 15 years to appear, and children’s neurological syste

Cellphones have become commonplace. Users are able to call, text and use the Internet, all from the convenience of a piece of equipment that fits in a pocket. According to Pew Research Center, 91 percent of adults in the U.S. have one.1

Pew found the number of people embracing the use of cellphones have made this device the most quickly accepted consumer technology in history. The latest survey found those over 65, living in rural areas and women, are less likely to own a cellphone, although this pattern has not been evident in previous surveys.

Pew attributes the quick rise in popularity of the device to the development of smartphones. Unfortunately, this connection to technology places you in danger of disconnecting from what’s real and really important. Use and overuse may lead to addiction. The New York Times observes:2

“The near-universal access to digital technology, starting at ever younger ages, is transforming modern society in ways that can have negative effects on physical and mental health, neurological development and personal relationships, not to mention safety on our roads and sidewalks.

As your usage increases, so does your exposure to electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation and, with it, your risk for developing cancer.

Although proponents claim the power emitted from cellphones is weak, the most plausible explanation for the health and biological impact is related to the erratic nature of the signal and its ability to interfere with DNA repair.

Study Links Cellphone Use to Increased Risk of Cancer

Previous studies have linked EMF radiation emitted from cellphones with triggering abnormal cell growth and cancer,3,4 but it is a recent study and a California lawsuit that has increased attention to this link. In the video above, Devra Davis, Ph.D., shares what is known about absorption of radiation by the brain from cellphone use.

The new research exposed rats to radiofrequency radiation from cellphones for approximately nine hours each day, after which the rats were more likely to develop tumors of glial cells in the brain and tumors in the heart.5

Opponents believe there may be some difficulty generalizing the results to human cellphone use for several reasons.

Some research using animal models are poorly designed and opponents have difficulty believing animal experiments may be extrapolated to human results.6However, without purposefully exposing humans to toxins and radiation, animals are the first models used.

In May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared cell phones a Group 2B “possible carcinogen” based on the available research.7 According to IARC director Christopher Wild, Ph.D.:8

“Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings, it is important that additional research be conducted into the long ‐ term, heavy use of mobile phones.

Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands ‐ free devices or texting.'”

While some studies have drawn links between cellphone usage and cancer, others have not been so definitive.

However, in a paper published by the Policy Studies Organization, the authors determined there appears to be a relationship between funding, or the author’s affiliation with industry during a study, and whether a correlation was found between cancer and cellphone use.9

Such research bias holds dangerous public health repercussions, and it’s certainly not the first time bias has been found to influence research results.10,11,12

Judge Orders Papers Released

To protect public health from the risks of cellphone radiation, California’s Environmental Health Investigations branch developed a set of recommendations and warnings.

However, no formal copy was ever publicly released. Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California Berkeley, requested access to this information.13

When his request was denied, he sued the state under the California Public Records Act and won. Moskowitz explained his actions to local CBS station in San Francisco:14

“I would like this document to see the light of day because it will inform the public that there is concern within the California Department of Public Health that cellphone radiation is a risk and it will provide them with some information about how to reduce those risks.”

However, while the document was released, it was stamped “Draft and Not for Public Release,” which essentially negates the ruling from the Supreme Court Judge. Moskowitz, not yet satisfied with the actions of the state of California, explained that the Public Records Act was violated, since:15

“That lettering states that the document is ‘draft and not for public release’ when the judge’s tentative ruling stated exactly the opposite — that the document was not a draft, and must be publicly released.”

The director of the Environmental Law Clinic at UC Berkeley, Claudia Polsky, representing Moskowitz, also believes the arguments for not releasing the document are irresponsible since the public health impact may be critical. She was also dissatisfied with the stamped disclaimer on the guidelines.16

The document contained summaries of studies suggesting long-term use of cellphones may increase your risk of brain cancer and that EMFs emitted from cellphones are frequently kept close to the head and body, potentially affecting nearby tissue.

The sheet also listed recommendations to reduce exposure to EMF radiation. Moskowitz notes:17 “This could have perhaps saved some lives if it had been published by the department seven years ago.”

WiFi Illness and Sensitivities

The health department’s lawyer argued releasing the document would unnecessarily alarm the public.18 However, many of these studies have been published for nearly 10 years, having had little to no impact on the sale of smartphones that now reside in 9 out of 10 adult hands in the U.S.

Although the sheer volume of WiFi and Bluetooth products is a relatively new phenomenon, the effects of these radiofrequency waves have been studied for decades.

John Moulder, Ph.D., professor emeritus of radiation oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, co-authored a review of existing research going back to the 1950s. His review found few health effects at low doses of EMF.

However, Moskowitz counters this argument, saying: “We have animal studies suggesting even low-level exposures to the kind of radio wave radiation associated with WiFi could have a variety of negative health effects.” Moskowitz gathered study summaries and published them in one place.19

There is reason for concern, not only from an outpouring of research painting a very different picture about cellphone safety than the telecommunications industry would have you believe, but also from a growing population of electrically sensitive individuals who may be the proverbial canaries in the coal mine.

Dr. Thomas Rau, medical director of the world-renowned Paracelsus Clinic in Switzerland, shared during an interview he did with me that an estimated 3 to 8 percent of populations in developed countries experience serious electro-hypersensitivity symptoms, while 35 percent experience mild symptoms.

Rau also believes that electromagnetic loads can lead to cancer, concentration problems, ADD, tinnitus, migraines, insomnia, arrhythmia, Parkinson’s and even back pain. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of EMF radiation on sperm quality, researchers found an 8 percent reduction in motility and 9 percent reduction in sperm viability.20,21 Researchers in one study wrote:22

“RF-EMR in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation. These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring.”

Is This a First Amendment Battle?

The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution says:23

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Berkeley, California, is the first in the nation to have a city ordinance requiring retailers to give consumers federal guidelines for safe cellphone use. While the notice hasn’t drawn much attention from consumers, it did draw the attention of the trade organization representing some of the largest cellphone manufacturers and carriers in the nation.

The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), took great offense and went to court arguing the sign infringes on the cellphone manufacturers and carriers First Amendment rights.24 They argue the ordinance is forcing retailers to “distribute its one-sided, innuendo-laden, highly misleading and scientifically unsupported opinion on a matter of public controversy.”

Berkeley denies the allegations, saying the signs are “nothing but an arrow that points to the very manuals written by manufacturers.” The cellphone warning was cleared by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco who, in a hearing in 2015, read from an iPhone manual which cautioned the user that if the device was carried closer than five-eighths of an inch from your body, it could surpass the federal radiation exposure guidelines.25 Chen wrote:26

“The mandated disclosure truthfully states that federal guidelines may be exceeded where spacing is not observed, just as the FDA accurately warns that ‘tobacco smoke can harm your children.'”

At this time, the iPhone manuals do not carry the RF recommendations. Instead, they’re buried in the settings on the phone.27Attorney for Berkeley, Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor, pointed out the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) announced three years ago it would reassess cellphone radiation safety standards28 which have not changed since 1996, but has not taken further action. According to Lessig:29

“The FCC would not be asking for comments about whether there was a health hazard if it had concluded that there was no possible way that a cellphone held against the body could constitute any health hazard.”

Court Determines Tumor Is From a Phone

According to the Italian Supreme Court, a man’s cellphone was responsible for a tumor growth in his trigeminal nerve, the fifth cranial nerve supplying sensation to your face and other structures in the head. The tumor grew very close to where the phone came in contact with Mr. Marcolini’s face, paralyzing half his face. Following the ruling, Marcolini commented:30

“This is significant for very many people. I wanted this problem to become public because many people still do not know the risks. I was on the phone, usually the mobile, for at least five or six hours every day at work. I wanted it recognized that there was a link between my illness and the use of mobile and cordless phones. Parents need to know their children are at risk of this illness.”

Dr. Angelo Gino Levis, a respected oncologist and professor of environmental mutagenesis, and Dr. Giuseppe Grasso, a neurosurgeon, testified for Marcolini, affirming the EMF radiation from mobile and cordless phones damages cells, making tumor growth more likely. Levis said:31

“The court decision is extremely important. It finally officially recognizes the link. It’ll open not a road but a motorway to legal actions by victims. We’re considering a class action. Tumors due to radiation may not appear for 15 years, so three to five-year studies don’t find them. We’ll only realize in years to come the damage phones can cause children.”

Children May Be at Grave Risk

Health risks are even greater for children than adults, for a couple reasons. Children are now exposed to EMF radiation at a very early age, whereas older people can still recall the days when every phone was hardwired to the wall.

Hence the opportunity for harm to develop over time is exponentially greater for children than adults. The exposure is also pervasive. Most homes have WiFi routers, cellphones and tablets, and many public areas also provide WiFi these days. Children spend hours on their parent’s smartphone and tablets, playing games and staying occupied.

Digital equipment has become an addiction for children and adults. Whether it’s a smartphone, tablet or WiFi enabled screen, children are spending between six and seven hour a day in front of a screen,32 a far cry from the two-hour max the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends.33

Holding a cellphone up to your ear allows 80 percent of the EMF radiation produced to penetrate your brain tissue up to two inches.34 Ronald Melnick, scientific adviser for the Environmental Health Trust, commented on the use of cellphones in the pediatric population:35

“The penetration of the cellphone radiation into the brain of a child is deeper and greater. Also, the developing nervous system of a child is potentially more susceptible to a damaging agent.”

The California’s Environmental Health Investigations guidelines concur, saying:36

“EMFs can pass deeper into a child’s brain than an adult’s. The brain is still developing through the teen years, which may make children and teens more sensitive to EMF exposure.”

Take Precautions to Protect Your Children and Yourself From EMF

Cellphones were first invented in 1973.37 Since the first mobile phone that was the size of a small box, cellphones have evolved into devices more easily carried in your pocket. However, while 40 years may seem like a long time, the cellphone did not become mainstream until the late 1990s, and many of the long-term side effects from overexposure to EMF radiation take years if not decades to develop.

This means there is no good way of predicting the long-term effects on a generation of children who are exposed to chronic radiation throughout their lives. Today, many children are even exposed before birth.

One study38 that evaluated the health of children in mothers who used cellphones during their pregnancy found a 25 percent increase in emotional problems, 34 percent increase in peer problems, 35 percent increase in hyperactivity and 49 percent increase in conduct problems than in mothers who did not use cellphones during their pregnancy. Another study found an increase in spontaneous abortions in mothers who used cellphones during their pregnancy.39

For your child’s and your own sake, I urge you to minimize these kinds of risks by taking some common-sense precautions. For a list of recommendations for lowering your EMF exposure, please see my previous article, “EMF Controversy Exposed.”

Device used to trick cellphones into revealing location raises legal issue, lawmaker says.


Shannon Bream reports on agencies' use of 'stingray' technology
Your cellphone may have been tracked by the government

An electronic device that tricks cellphones into revealing a user’s location is becoming a key weapon for law enforcement in its battle against drug traffickers, terror suspects and other dangerous criminals — but its potential misuse against innocent Americans and the secrecy surrounding which agencies have the devices is of growing concern by civil liberties watchdogs and lawmakers.

Cellular site simulators — known as “StingRay tracking” — basically are fake cell towers that use digital signals to trick a cellphone into revealing its location and other information. Law enforcement typically places the device near the location of a known suspect — but they also have been used at large gatherings such as rallies, where the digital information of hundreds, even thousands, is scooped up.

And while law enforcement agencies turn to the courts for permission to deploy the devices, the requests typically are generic applications called “pen register applications,” which only require the agency to affirm that the device will be used in a criminal investigation, without having to name a specific individual. That legal vagueness is what concerns lawmakers.

“If you can track somebody’s location 24/7, you know the content of their life,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah. “I think innocent Americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Chaffetz last November proposed the Stingray Privacy Act, which would toughen the warrants needed to deploy the devices and make their use without a court order illegal and punishable with a fine or up to 10 years in prison.

Since introducing the bipartisan legislation, Chaffetz said his ongoing investigation into which agencies use StingRay devices and why has yielded few answers.

“It’s still highly secretive,” Chaffetz told FoxNews.com Wednesday. “They’re not very candid about how they’re using them.”

“For instance, the IRS has this technology,” he said. “What in the world are they doing with it? It raises questions as to why they would need to track people as they move around the country.”

Cell site simulators are currently used by 13 federal agencies, including the U.S. Marshals Service and Drug Enforcement Administration, and at least 50 local and state police departments, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Places where the devices are used by local and state police include California, Texas, Minnesota, Florida, Maryland and New York.

%d bloggers like this: