Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Cell Phones & Wi-Fi Dangers Are Real
Talk about the need for change. By rubberstamping wireless technology without adequate testing, we have been legislated to death, officially.
Superstar attorney Johnnie Cochran’s doctor, Dr. Keith Black, said publically that he believes Cochran's death was caused by his cell phone use in an interview with CNN in 2005 as reported on EMF Facts:
"BLACK: My own belief is that there probably is a correlation between the use of cell phones and brain cancer, even though there’s no scientific proof.
GUPTA: Dr. Black, who’s the head of neurosurgery at Cedar Sinai Medical Center, believes one day science will catch up to what he’s already seeing with his own patients.
BLACK: We know that people that use cell phones a lot also complain of headaches, difficulty with concentration, with memory. You know, this is a microwave antenna, so you’re essentially cooking the brain when you hold the receiver right next to your brain."
The City of San Francisco asked a PhD. in Canada for the real deal regarding the health risks associated with cell phones and Wi-Fi. The report is dated May 29, 2007.
Unlike the vast majority of available research on the subject of cancer and wireless technology, it was not financed and approved by the wireless technology industry.
If you use a cell phone or Wi-Fi please read the report referenced, excerpts below.
Magda Havas, B.Sc., Ph.D.
Environmental & Resource Studies
TRENT UNIVERSITY, PETERBOROUGH, ONTARIO, CANADA, K9J 7B8
Phone: (705) 748-1011 ext. 7882, FAX: (705) 748-1569, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: May 29, 2007
To: Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Regarding: Case No. 2007.0097E
San Francisco Citywide Wireless Broadband Internet Access Network
Analysis of Health and Environmental Effects of Proposed
San Francisco Earthlink Wi-Fi Network
Laboratory studies of radio frequency radiation as well as epidemiological studies of people who live near cell phone antennas and/or use wireless technology indicate adverse biological effects.
These effects include increase in cancers, DNA breaks, impaired reproduction, increased
permeability of the blood-brain barrier, altered calcium flux, changes in enzyme activity,
neurological disorders, altered brainwave activity, insomnia, decreased memory, inattention,
slower reaction time, tinnitus, dizziness, skin disorders, headaches, chronic pain, chronic fatigue, respiratory problems and arrhythmia. A growing population is becoming sensitive to
electromagnetic energy and some of these people are affected by radio frequency radiation and are unable to live near antennas. Animals that live near cell phone and broadcast antennas are also affected by RF radiation, which manifests itself in reproductive impairment and behavioral abnormalities.
The cancers and symptoms of EHS occur at levels well below the FCC guidelines for radio
frequency radiation. These guidelines are based on short-term (6-minute) thermal effects and are inadequate to protect the population from long-term, non-thermal exposure. The FCC guidelines conform to ICNIRP guidelines (15) but are much higher (i.e. less protective) than guidelines in other countries.
Metal objects such as wiring in the home, fences, poles, roofs, filing cabinets can redirect RFR and create hot spots or interfere with reception. For this reason calculations of exposure may not be as reliable as actually measurements. Appeals and resolutions from physicians and scientist request governments to provide the strictest guidelines for RF exposure and address the growing number of people developing a sensitivity to this form of energy.
The Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco should adopt the
precautionary principle in their decision regarding the Earthlink Wi-Fi Network. The scientific
evidence indicates that exposure to radio frequency radiation near cell phone antennas and in laboratory studies is associated with and/or causes adverse biological and health effects at levels well below federal guidelines and at levels to which people who use wireless computers are likely to be exposed. Policy makers and the public should heed the warning that this form of energy, at current exposures, is far from benign and should act accordingly to protect human health and the environment.
Since cumulative radio frequency exposures are unknown from currently operating antennas and towers, a baseline analysis is important to determine what these current exposure conditions are at present. This should be done prior to approval of a Wi-Fi system. An exposure assessment should be done in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines to determine that there are no health risks.
email@example.com San Francisco EarthLink Wi-Fi Network, 2007 page 21/51
Blanketing San Francisco with yet another source of radio frequency radiation in addition to the existing cell phone, broadcast, and essential police, fire, ambulance communication antennas is likely to result in a growing number of people becoming ill.
Those who have to make decisions about where antennas should be placed are seldom provided with all the facts. Often they are given conflicting information and side with the industry because they don’t want to stand in the way of “progress.” The oath of office that most public officials take requires protecting public health and may require swimming against the tide in order to do what is right.
The Board of Supervisors will be shown studies that document no adverse effects of this
technology and they will be told the scientific evidence in contradictory and inconclusive. The underlying assumption is that until science can prove this form of energy is harmful, until scientists understand the mechanisms involved, until every study shows the same thing, we should allow human exposure. That approach could be tantamount to the costly history lesson of smoking and lung cancer; asbestos exposure and mesothelioma; DDT and loss of bird populations.
Science does not have all the answers and the understanding of mechanism is incomplete.
However, according to the Precautionary Principle “threats of serious or irreversible damage” is all that is needed to act.