StopUMTS Logo
how to get rid of moles 
08/03/18Boeken over EMV / stralin
05/02/18Voorlichting voor wie nie
20/03/18Stralingsklachten zijn Bi
18/03/18Is Radiation From Your Ce
15/03/18Nieuwsbrief Verminder Ele
13/03/185G And The IOT: Scientifi
13/03/18Thinking of 5G? Here are
08/03/18Can your cell phone damag
Berichten Nederland
20/03/18Stralingsbewuste partijen
19/03/18Gezondheidsraad: Meer ond
17/03/18Een op de vijf kampt met
15/03/18Digitropolis: Documentair
15/03/185G: Staatssecretaris: pro
Berichten België
13/03/18''Verplichte slimme meter
14/02/18Stralingsoverlast door ze
Berichten Internationaal
20/03/18Europa: Brussel zet geldp
16/03/18USA: Senator Michigan get
13/03/18USA: Residents worried ab
12/03/18USA: 5G Cell Service Is C
Ervaringen | Appellen/oproepen
06/03/18Ervaring uit Duitsland: U
09/02/18Burostoel met smart activ
15/01/18Ziekmakende ervaringen me
17/03/18NTP Reports: Comments by
13/03/18Comparison of radiofreque
13/03/18Favourable and Unfavourab
Veel gestelde vragen
13/05/17Vakantie? Witte zo
10/07/16Zeven veel gestelde vrage
Juridische informatie
02/03/18Formal Complaint to the E
26/02/185G From Space & Santa Fe
23/01/18Reeks publicaties op juri
19/04/18Lezing: Smartphones, WiFi
07/04/18EHS Uitnodiging landelijk
21/03/18Gratis informatiebijeenko
10/09/17Brochures, folders, websi
29/04/16USA: Meer dan 50 tips voo
Briefwisselingen | Archief: 2008, 2005
18/03/18Contact opnemen met polit
01/03/18Mail naar de raadsleden v
 Fotoalbum zendmasten
 Wetenschappelijke illustraties
Do You Really Believe Your Cell Phone (i.e. Microwave Transceiver) Is NOT Harming Your Health?    
Ga naar overzicht berichten in: Artikelen

Do You Really Believe Your Cell Phone (i.e. Microwave Transceiver) Is NOT Harming Your Health?
zaterdag, 14 oktober 2017 - Dossier: Algemeen

12 okt. 2017

Wherever we go nowadays — in restaurants, cafes, shopping malls, on public transportation, on the street, in their cars, and even on T.V. — we see people engaged, often obsessively, with their wireless devices.

These devices that have made our lives so convenient have, to say the least, indeed also drastically changed our lifestyles, how we interact with each other, and how we behave in public. So if everyone is so utterly engrossed with his or her individual wireless devices without any seemingly overt problems, shouldn’t we not just chalk it up to normal behavior of the modern 21st century? And since our governmental organizations have seamlessly approved the use of these wireless devices, then they must also be safe, right? Well, hold your horses on those two beliefs, as it may very well be way too early to jump the gun on either of these particular conclusions.

After all, fifty years ago, it was quite common — and “normal” — to see people smoking cigarettes in all the places where it is perfectly acceptable for people to be using their wireless devices today. Nowadays, most people would throw a fit if someone invaded their space with second-hand cigarette smoke, but seemingly don’t think twice if someone invades their space with what might be regarded as second-hand electromagnetic radiation.

What Is Officialdom Telling Us?

While there is a lot of contradictory information out there about whether the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by our wireless devices are actually harmful or not, for years now officialdom has been giving us the impression that they have been in fact safe.

For example, the FDA presently states on its website that

“The majority of studies published have failed to show an association between exposure to radiofrequency from a cell phone and health problems.” (1)

And the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also states that
“There is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other problems, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss.” (1)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) further states that
“At this time we do not have the science to link health problems to cell phone use.” (1)

And according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS),
“Current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, but more research is needed.” (1)

Finally, even the National Cancer Institute (NCI) tells us that
“Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head or neck.” (1)

Is History Repeating Itself?

We can find similar statements from the 1950s and 1960s by officials regarding cigarette smoking as we are hearing today from officials with regards to wireless radiation. For example, The New York Times published, on April 14, 1954, a number of quotations — made public by the Tobacco Industry Research Committee — by a number of distinguished cancer authorities, all of them denying there was a link between smoking and lung cancer. For instance, Dr. R.H. Rigdon, Director of Laboratory of Experimental Pathology at the University of Texas, stated that

“In our opinion the data available today do not justify the conclusions that the increase in the frequency of cancer of the lung is the result of cigarette smoking.” (2)

Dr. W. C. Heuper of the National Cancer Institute asserted
“If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one, if judged by the evidence on hand.” (2)

And Dr. Max Cutler, cancer surgeon of Chicago, declared
“I feel strongly that the blanket statements which appeared in the press that there is a direct and causative relationship between smoking and cigarettes, and the number of cigarettes smoked, to cancer of the lung is an absolutely unwarranted conclusion.” (2)

And Sir Charles Ellis, Senior Scientist at British American Tobacco Company stated in 1962 that
“It is my conviction that nicotine is a very remarkable, beneficent drug that both helps the body to resist external stress and can as a result show a pronounced tranquillizing effect.” (3)

And then Dr. Ian MacDonald, a Los Angeles surgeon is quoted in Newsweek (November 18, 1963) declared that
“For the majority of people, smoking has a beneficial effect.” (4)

And we mustn’t forget about the West German drug thalidomide, which caused terrible birth defects in the babies of women — throughout the world in the late 1950s and early 1960s — who had taken it primarily as anti-nausea medication for morning sickness while pregnant (and now, ironically, being used as a chemotherapy drug for multiple myeloma, a form of immune cell cancer). At the time, it was not believed that pharmaceuticals taken by pregnant women could pass through the placenta barrier and cause harm to a developing fetus — probably in the same way that many misguidedly believe that “non-ionizing radiation” is harmless today.

For example, it was stated by a William S. Merrell pharmaceutical company executive on October 25, 1960, at a special conference held to present its introductory marketing plan for thalidomide to its sales force that

“We have firmly established the safety, dosage and usefulness of Kevadon brand name for thalidomide by both foreign and U.S. laboratory and clinical studies.” (5)

Further, it was written in a letter to the FDA by a physician participating in the “clinical investigation” program for the new sleeping pill that Kevadon thalidomide was
“An outstandingly safe medication.” (6)

German philosopher Friedrich Hegel was correct when he stated that
“The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.”

Natural EMFs
Electromagnetic fields (EMFs), (used interchangeable with electromagnetic radiation EMR), are real and have always been present on our planet. The Sun, the Earth, the Moon, the planets, and the stars all emit EMFs. EMFs have been essential for the development of life on this planet and we would not be here without them. The Earth emits its own frequency of 7.83 hertz (Hz), known as the Schumann Resonance, and there is scientific evidence to support the claim that this particular frequency is therapeutic (7).

Artificial EMFs
However, having said that, the artificial manmade electromagnetic radiation that we are all presently being exposed to on a daily basis from all our wireless devices and the towers that power them has been estimated to be between one quadrillion (1015) to one quintillion (1018) times what we would get from natural background sources 8. And the fact that doctors use electroencephalograms (EEGs) and electrocardiograms (EKGs) to measure the electrical activity of the brain and heart, respectively, should make any average Joe with an inkling of critical thinking skills consider the possibility that we are all indeed electromagnetic beings capable of being affected by all this electromagnetic pollution in our environments.

Non-ionizing and Ionizing Radiation
The electromagnetic spectrum can be divided into what has been described as lower frequency non-ionizing radiation and the higher frequency ionizing radiation and ranges from extremely low frequency (ELF) in the non-ionizing range to gamma rays in the ionizing range. Ionizing radiation is called such because it carries enough energy giving it the ability to free ions from atoms and molecules.

Power Frequency and Radiofrequency
In the non-ionizing range, EMFs can be further divided into what have been described as power frequency (3 Hz to 3000Hz), and radiofrequency (RF) (3 kHz to 300 GHz). Power-frequency waves are designated as being from extremely-low-frequency (ELF) to ultra-low-frequency (ULF) waves of alternating current traveling on the electric lines and wires that power our electrical appliances. Radiofrequency (RF) waves are, on the other hand, designated as being from very-low-frequency (VLF) to extremely-high-frequency (EHF) EMFs and are mainly used for telecommunications and radar and are what allow us to listen to the radio, watch TV, use cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi, and other wireless devices.

Thousands of Research Studies Showing Biological Effects
There are thousands of research studies showing biological effects from electromagnetic field exposures (9-14), with many of these “unclassified” studies conducted by the military going back to the 1940s, intensifying in the 1960s, and extending into the 1980s (15).

Industry-funded Researcher Bias
There are also, paralleling the rise of the wireless industry, however, numerous more recent studies showing no biological effects. Interestingly, it has been the industry-sponsored researchers who have conducted the good majority of these later studies — and often seemingly in response to studies by independent researchers that have shown some kind of adverse biological effect.

In analysis conducted by Henry Lai, Ph.D. at the University of Washington (16), it was found that of 326 studies on the biological effect of radiofrequency radiation performed between 1990s and 2006 that 50% found biological effects and 50% did not. However, when Lai took a closer look at who sponsored the studies, he discovered that only 30% of industry-funded studies found an effect, whereas a whopping 70% of the independently funded research studies found biological effect. Perhaps if some reporters — who prematurely claim that the evidence is “inconclusive” — were to look a little more deeply down the rabbit hole, they might be able to relay some sounder information. Hence, it is important for us — in examining these studies — to not only look at the quality of the studies performed, but also at who paid for the studies, and how all these studies fit into the much larger economic, political, social, scientific, and psychological picture.

A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words
Red Blood Cell Rouleaux Formation from Cell Phone Radiation
Numerous studies repeated over the years have shown how red blood cells (RBCs) will clump together in what is described as Rouleaux formation when they are exposed for only even short periods of time to wireless radiation from cell phones and other wireless devices. For example, the first study I saw on this was a German study back in 2005 of a person who only spoke on the phone for 90 seconds (17, 18). Blood was taken from the caller immediately before and immediately after the phone call.

En dit is nog niet het eind van dit lange artikel, zie voor het geheel, inclusief de illustraties de link bovenaan. Aan het eind nog enig commentaar van mijn kant.

Ga terug naar het hoofdmenu
Afdrukken | Vragen | RSS | Disclaimer