1) In last night’s update, I included an email that Josh del Sol sent which included a cell tower worker saying he was being exposed to RF because the transmitters were not being turned off, and that the exposure levels exceeded FCC allowed levels. Of important note, and I will be sending this to Josh, there was a lawsuit in Alaska in 2007 in which the Supreme Court upheld a decision in favour of a worker exposed to RF. In Canada, the rules are the same as in the USA – there is no requirement that cell/radio transmitters are measured on-site. Instead, there is a computer program that is used, based on info that could be old or incorrect. In many places in the USA and Canada, where independent measurements were taken, it was found that RF levels far exceeded the limits allowed by Safety Code 6 or FCC. Workers are being exposed to hidden transmitters that are on roofs, in signs, and now we are being exposed to transmitters on poles outside our homes. We have no idea what the power or exposure levels are in most cases.
“This precedent-setting case opens the door for any wireless industry or maintenance worker who has been exposed to antenna arrays on the job site that have not been shut off to file disability claims should they suffer similar cognitive and neurological symptoms. US wireless service providers are not required to document compliance with FCC RF safety limits by on-site radiation measurements. Millions of workers occupy worksites on a daily basis where operating antenna arrays are camouflaged and where no workplace RF safety program is carried out.”
2) Below, in Letters, is a recent study translated by Katharina Gustavs that shows effects on human cognition ability after exposure to RF for relatively short periods.
During the human experiments, the buccal mucosa of the volunteer subjects was exposed for two-hour periods on five consecutive days. The nonexposed opposite buccal mucosa served as a control. During the exposure, effects on cognitive performance were examined. The exposure shortened the reaction time, while the error rate increased. For more complex processes such as memory tests, both reaction time and error rate increased during exposure. Two and three weeks, respectively, after the HF EMF exposure, buccal mucosa cells were sampled and analyzed. Minor genotoxic and cytotoxic effects were found, pointing to an accumulation of exposure effects.
3) Industry and, sadly, agencies like Health Canada, the Cancer Society, etc. state on their websites that there is no increase in cancers or in brain tumors, implying that this means that microwave radiation is safe. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening. It is hard to get statistics in Canada and the USA, but other countries are keeping track and there is no reason to believe experience here is any different. Perhaps there is a delay because the introduction of wireless devices, especially cell phones, in North America was several years after there was widespread use in Europe.
“Using national tumor registry data, a recent study found that the overall incidence of meningioma, the most common non-malignant brain tumor, has significantly increased in the United States in recent years (Dolecek et al., 2015) .
The age-adjusted incidence rate for meningioma significantly increased from about 6.3 per 100,000 in 2004 to about 7.8 per 100,000 in 2009. Brain tumor incidence increased for all age groups except youth (0-19 years of age).”“
http://www.saferemr.com/2015/05/brain-tumor-rates-are-rising-in-us-role.html
4) Coffee shops might want to know that people will come if they have to leave their laptops and cell phones in their cars, and actually talk with their friends. This café in Mill Valley, California was named Small Business of the Year.
https://www.emfanalysis.com/cafe-thrives-without-wifi/
5) I had circulated an article about this ruling (http://mieuxprevenir.blogspot.ca/2016/08/spain-high-court-of-madrid-ruling.html), but now the legal decision is available in English (Google translation I suspect).
“High Court of Madrid Ruling Recognizes “Electrosensitivity” as Grounds for Total Permanent Disability – Towards Better Health, 4th August 2016”
https://beingelectrosensitive.blogspot.ca/2016/08/spain-ehs-legally-recognised.html
Letters:
Research Report ATHEM-2
Investigation of Nonthermal Effects of Electromagnetic Fields in the Cell Phone Frequency Range
A Joint Project of the Austrian Workers’ Compensation Board (AUVA – Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt) and the Medical University of Vienna (MUW – Medizinische Universität Wien)
2016 – AUVA Report No. 70
Abstract translated by Katharina Gustavs (25 August 2016)
http://www.katharinaconsulting.com/
The ATHEM-2 Project on the Investigation of Nonthermal Effects of Electromagnetic Fields in the Cell Phone Frequency Range is a follow-up study of the ATHEM-1 Project (2002-2008).
Cell phones transmit and receive radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF). Anybody who uses cell phones is exposed to these fields. The ATHEM-2 Project studied not only cognitive effects, but also if and how RF EMF exposures change cells of the human body. One main area of the study focused on laboratory tests of cellular mechanisms of possible genotoxic effects. To ensure quality assurance, the planned tests were reviewed by external experts prior to the start of the project. All tests were carried out as “double blind” experiments. During exposure and during the processing of test samples, neither the volunteer subjects nor the scientists carrying out the experiments knew the actual exposure conditions.
During the human experiments, the buccal mucosa of the volunteer subjects was exposed for two-hour periods on five consecutive days. The nonexposed opposite buccal mucosa served as a control. During the exposure, effects on cognitive performance were examined. The exposure shortened the reaction time, while the error rate increased. For more complex processes such as memory tests, both reaction time and error rate increased during exposure. Two and three weeks, respectively, after the HF EMF exposure, buccal mucosa cells were sampled and analyzed. Minor genotoxic and cytotoxic effects were found, pointing to an accumulation of exposure effects.
The in vitro laboratory tests regarding genotoxicity confirmed that there are cells that are more sensitive to RF electromagnetic fields and others that are less sensitive. The existence of a latency period (time from the start of exposure until the onset of effects) was also confirmed. As a cellular mechanism, it was observed that RF EMF exposure oxidizes the DNA and thus can make DNA more fragile. In cells exposed to additional stress, the RF EMF exposure increased the DNA breakage rate. We observed cells that activate specific cellular repair mechanisms during RF EMF exposure. This finding on the one hand confirms that DNA damage has occurred and on the other hand supports the assumption that the damage can be repaired. DNA changes that were triggered in this manner disappear after ca. two hours.
None of the effects that were observed allow any conclusions to be made about direct harmful health effects. However, they constitute a potential risk for exposed persons. Simple precautionary measures taken by the user can reduce the exposure and can therefore minimize this risk. Specific precautionary measures include, among other things, not carrying a cell phone on the body but in a purse or handbag and—during a call—using the speakerphone or a headset.
ATHEM-2 research report 2016 (original report in German):
Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
http://www.tesla.ru/english/SBIR/rbiology.html
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/mapnatreps/russianfed0304.pdf