Wi-Fi is not all-that, in terms of risk, relatively speaking, of course. It's rated output (as a transceiver) is roughly that of a cell-phone, which children stick to their head all-day-long, so-to-speak.

Again, there should be independent research referring to the link between radio frequency,(in various spectral ranges and modulation methods) and human or animal health.

None of that has happened yet. The small amount of research remotely related to these issues, was defined and methodologised by the transmitting parties, who's conflict of interest is evidently clear.

It is possible however, that people in general don't want to pursue this venue, in fear of the emerging results, sort of "burying their heads in the sand".

Or, alternatively, wear a tin-foil hat.

Come to think of it? given all the above? Not a bad idea, even best, when properly grounded.

Some minimal Faraday-Cage, just to feel you did your bit.

<burying their heads in the sand>

Good one!

Hey, I know guys who have tried this! Well, not on their cats of course...

Please remove my image. You are stealing from me.

http://gwally.com/news/000858.php

Please remove your post. You are messing with my peace of mind.

First reveal yourself with a verified name, and then prove your claim.

1. You claim in anonymity

2. A link proves nothing,

Here's another link. What can you prove with it?

http://www.zombo.com/

I'm sure 50-60 years down the road they will find it is harmful to your health for the youth of today and that you could die from it. Used to be you die from old age.

I wonder about the whole of Wireless Technology, from cell phones to towers to satellites...combining the EMR effects of all, where is humanity headed in 20 years? What cellular changes are now occuring in human brains that are a direct result of EMR? There is much debate on this subject and it has not been quieted down, but as Yuval points out, independent research would be greatly appreciated.

Jules

yes independent unbias research would be greatly appreciated, whats driving the wireless technology is consumers.

The questions is, how and who's going to pay for it, other than mass health issues.

And if concerned, one first has to ask one's self, can I give up wireless technology, or even technology and or anything technology has to do with as a whole.

just a thought

Well, if it's going to kill me, I'll forgo the technology. That's the question. Is it dangerou? Should we wait for only time will tell or is there research available now? I could possibly know the answers to these questions, but I'm hoping to generate some commentary

Forgive me for taking this out of context but "forgo the technology". That can be a pretty wide paint brush and putting these words into action is difficult.

Technology touches just about everyone and just about everything one has, and it's being taked for granted

Think about it. Shoes on you feet, Plates you eat off of. Clothes on you back. Shelter, tools, transportation..... I do not know many naturalists, the ones that I do admit they use some technology. Its difficult to get away from it.

And as for answers, the answers may rise more question, one has to start somewhere.

Okay, point taken. Let me rephrase this:

I will forgo my wireless connection at home unless I can find a router that provides safety if it is proven that wireless routers and connections are unsafe in the home. I will forgo my cell phone unless I can find a cell phone that is safer if it is proven that both headsets and cell phones are unsafe. I will forgo our mobile phones at home ....

If it is proven that the above technology is unsafe, then it is time to pursue taking steps to minimize the danger, which seems a logical step. Are companies doing that now in the mainstream? That is a question for us to ponder. So is the question of safety, which I ask here on this blog, hoping the many brilliant minds who populate CR-4 will step forward and speak their piece.

Jules

Only going by what already happened, is that things evolve. Wireless will be replaced with something else. And then we can worry about that.

It's not a losing battle, just a difficult one.

Not all or any technology can be abandoned just like that. Think of the social, political, and commercial implications, which may, in turn, have their serious impact on human survival, not less, if not more, than technological this or that.

This is not at all a light-headed issue.

There are a lot of instances in our civilisations, which have reached a kind of 'point-of-no-return', not by the mere omission of ther application, but rather, by their short or long term implication, derived by the availability and viability of alternatives.

This is said, regarding civilised shift or change, and global catastrophes not taken into account.

Agreed! If it there is a risk, which I would love to see some independent research proving such if it exists, then what technology should change, and how should it change?

As research is so tied to funding, as you once mentioned, this (the allocation and degree of funding) will always reflect popular interest or fear.

Take the sums pored into the research of cancer or AIDS, once the subject got rid of the public taboo associated to these.

These two examples are to stress the point that money will pour into research, even that some knowledge will accumulate over the years, to suggest that these are not likely candidates for any feasible conclusive solution, in any foreseeable future.

Just as the sums poured into NASA are not likely to correlate to any rush-jobs related to ecology of economic needs of a nation. Any nation.

It's a matter of public awareness, and this could be influenced by the media.

Hope is right there, at the other end of the TV-Tube.

Yuval, please elaborate. How can we find the information we are seeking?

About research made into the correlation between RF and human health or about HIV or cancer?

In your posts you stated yourself well, When a post comes up such as wireless tech. or anything that may be harmful. One has to look at the overall role this has to do with humankind and the quality of life we make for ourselves. And one part may represent a risk and to try to surgically remove it from our society is too difficult.

And unfortunately a conclusion may come that the risk is acceptable. " until it effects you personably ".

One thing that discussing topics on boards like this does, it atleast helps stop ignoracy, which is a problem we all have time to time.

Phoenix911,

Good comment, that is exactly my point.

Yuval, I am speaking of the correlation between wireless technology and human health. One might narrow down the specifics and postulate that a satellite may not affect human health as much as an RFID chip, for example. There is so much discussion of this topic in the UK that I thought it worthwhile to post here and ask for scientific commentary from our CR-4 community.

Thank you,

Jules

There is very little known on the subject in spite of more than a hundred years of actual experience in RF broadcast.

It's more like, the bio-medical research establishment should pop it's head from you-know-where, and have the nerve to suggest research for some enlightenment of darkened decades, which I would boldly call "Criminal Negligence".

This is a scandal on a global proportion.

Not unlike the negligence of pesticide-resistant bugs in agriculture and antibiotic-resistant microbe population in hospital, of all places.

Ah we are getting closer to the kernal here...tell us more about this:

This is a scandal on a global proportion.

A state, even society as a concept, as style of life, is no more than a survival agreement between individuals.

It's been very long since they functioned according to this mandate. What it turned to, is a collection of nets, promoting their members, while abusing others in any way possible.

It's not about capitalism socialism, or whatever. It's about states neglecting their basic survival functions to their members, in favour of 1001 other issues interests and agendas, promoted and cultivated, by ruling individuals, be it politicians, industrialists, or influential leaders in the academia.

It's a basic, acute, sick form of corruption of the relatively affluent, who tend to promote the survival and prosperity of the affluent, while abusing the rest, the majority of the have-not.

Prosperity of the haves, at the expense of the have-nots.

When you need expenditure beyond your income to survive, it means that in your society, only those with income above yours, are permitted to survive.

This is the oldest form of social corruption, and if we tent to think that we got rid of it in the twentieth century by the spread of democracy, we now come to realise it's only an empty form of facade, with the same evil ways as before.

If communism tried to get rid of it by forming socialist countries, it was only to be realised a bit later, that there, exactly as anywhere else, the haves on top, feed off the tribute of the have-nots.

Scandals of global proportion, are only a consequence of this corruption, when you as an authority, want to prosper, by neglecting your civil duties, and promoting other interests, instead.

Well put Yuval!

That's why I'm here, speaking to scientists such as yourself. I believe that the scientists of the world have our best interests at heart. It is only when research is controlled by corporate, not human interest, that technology gets out of hand.

Jules

until they unknowningly open what turns out to be a pandora's box. Like say for instance, we can help humankind and make this a better world by developing wireless technolgy........

Well, one could argue that Tesla's free energy technology has led to weaponry in use today, but perhaps that was not his original intent.

One can also say technology from weaponry also improved humankind's well being.

The moral maybe "Things may not be what they appear"

One might say that, but the one saying it would not be me.

Jules

Moral or the comment prior.

One thing I would like to add, as an engineer or a scientist, we do not have the convenience to ignore the truth if it does not agree with our beliefs.

That can be very humbling. And when people begin on these discussion boards and take a position. One better be prepared to defend that position.

Definitely agree, and that's what makes CR-4 such a great forum for scientists like yourself.

I hope to generate debate specifically on whether Wireless Technology, in any of its singular products or all of its forms combined, is in any way harmful to humans.

Considering the fact that wireless technology has now become di rigeur in many civilized societies, and those same societies governments are questioning its safety, this is a timely discussion.

As noted, comments should be backed up by fact, or a reasonable facsimile thereof , with the researcher prepared to defend his/her thesis in the CR-4 forum.

I'm looking forward to hearing what everyone has to say on this topic. If there's ANY research being conducted, please do share it with us. Okay, even if it's research by the same companies who invented the stuff. Who knows, perhaps they would like their products to be safer. I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

Jules

When you make statements like that, your talking while standing on the fringes of groups like this.

It's not like I look for a chance to use ones words against you, please read to the end for the point because this is an example of the point I want to get across. "Considering the fact that wireless technology has now become di rigeur in many civilized societies, and those same societies governments are questioning its safety, this is a timely discussion."

You are talking to people that have a very strong opinion about when some one says " were from the government and we here to help you "

When we hear that, ones first reaction is to take defensive positions. because our views that bureaucracy only goes though the motions from personal gain. Their conviction can be contradictory, and those views are taken from personal observations and experience.

And to put it in an analogy if you were to have them "bureaucracy" give you a boat ride to get you across the lake, when the weather changes half way there you find yourself swimming alone.

And the point is, when bureaucracy is involved. talking for myself, If I had choice to pick between 2 battles,

1 battle that I have a possible just to win because its play on a level playing field

or

battle number 2, a battle where your opponent being "bureaucracy" can change the rules.

The only time I pick battle number 2 is when their is no other choices, and that happens.

And right now, there are choices.

And before you rebuttal on being proactive. I'll add this.

The visible problem is not where it is evidently seen as in this cause wireless tech. to solve that problem one has to plan and solve other issues before finding a solution to wireless.

As much as one likes to think that there is some sort of conspiracy thoery, I like to think it just human nature.

Also Thanks for your complament, but don't give us too much credit, I had to look up the meaning of "di rigeur".

Phoenix,

I think you misunderstand me. I am only looking for technical information that supports the safety or lack thereof of wireless technology. It's a very broad field and there have been statements that this research is not done by independent scientists.

Surely someone out there has read a study or participated in a study that proves concerns about safety are either unfounded or founded.

I am not trying to spark a discussion about world governments and their motives.

Jules

sorry I gave you that b.s.. I misunderstood, I thought you read the reports, I did not know you were looking for the reports and its authors. You may still have to cut though stuff like the stuff I give you though.

I do not have an answer, so I wish you good luck on your quest.

Quite all right, no worries. Here's a couple of reports that focus specifically on cell phone safety while driving:

Old study: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/wireless/

Newer study: http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/labnotes/0306/sengupta.html

very interest, those who are developing this technology are doing it because they can (love to make something out of nothing). I know the feeling.

After this post like other posts. I see, read, evaluate and have learned or am learning.

Thank you,

phoenix911

I read fast, though may not be as through as I would like.

Here's another one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/08/nmobile108.xml&site=5&page=0

Photonicgirl....so we meet again. (play audio of evil laughter here)

I would restate my opines of possible evolutionary implications toward telepathy but that was sooooo yesterday.

ohh what the heck..nah. Nevermind.

cr3

Let me insert some mingle-mangled half baked thoughts;

Is wireless stuff safe and how/will we find out ? Who knows, and don't hold your breath.

Just this morning I heard somebody commenting on the nature of research reports; The old chestnut that for every research report that supports an idea, another report can be found to counter it. It's the 'beauty' of the internet that every man and his dog can circulate an opinion, whether it has basis in reality or not. That's human nature, but government and organizations love it too - 'look how many PhD students and research papers we produce ! ' ( never mind that lots of it is utter bull). Meaningless research papers could invite a research paper in itself.

Getting industry to say that cell phones/wireless/whatever damages health would be like expecting General Motors to advocate bicycles on Freeways in order to stop Global Warming (eg, pick any maker you want for more). Maybe if people have 3 eyes in a couple of generations we might know.

How about this, a tax could be levied on all mobile phone calls or e-mails. Surely nobody would mind an itty-bitty 1p on a 10p text message etc. Most phone calls,text-messages, and e-mails are junk anyway. It might stop the tide of garbage, and think how much money could be raised for some kind or research programme. It would be MASSIVE. People are OK with paying Carbon offsets (" Hey we can carry on flying now, we payed for all that greenhouse gas !". Ooops, I digress) so why not. Deciding who should spend all the Gigazillion dollars might be a problem, but it would be a start.

Of course, people might not want to know. They might not even want to act. Cars accidents would probably be reduced if air-bags were replaced by spring loaded daggers. Having a waist size greater than their height doesn't stop some people over-eating. I could go (sanctimoniously) on. Personal use of gadgets is exactly that, personal use and choice. Forests of cell-phone masts on top of schools is a matter of lobbying ( If so inclined).

Until we have evidence such as 3-eyed children, or pictures showing damage to brain cells caused by lab experiments, most people will not know what to think for sure. Beagles may be off the fags now, but some critter is probably bricking it over this issue. Meantime, I'll stick to avoiding cell-phones etc as best I can, and register 'No' to cell-phone masts atop places where people live/work. OTT ? Quite probably, but given a choice I walk on the sidewalk and not the road.

Hi All, I am enclosing information and links from Dr. Mercola's site that I discovered recently. I really would like you to take this topic seriously and get yourself protected by BIOPRO Technology using their patented MRET and proprietary ERT technologies; below are samples of BIOPRO Cell Chips that I pasted on my cellular & cordless phones, GPS, pager, computer, and TV screen.

Below is a link to an article I copied from Dr. M's site:

"If Mobile Phones Were a Type of Food, They Simply Would Not be Licensed" - http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/17/mobile_phones.htm

Copied from the article: "Finally, in support of the reality of an adverse health impact of non-thermal influences of the kind of radiation used today in mobile telephony, we should recall that during the "cold war" the Soviet irradiation of western embassies with microwave radiation (of an intensity intermediate between that in the vicinity of a handset and a base-station), done with the express intention of inducing adverse health effects, was quite successful". The Lancet, November 25, 2000

Dr. Mercola's comment on this article: This is the most comprehensive detailed and well referenced report on cell phone dangers I have yet to see. Cell phones are becoming increasingly popular, yet most are absolutely blinded to the damage they are doing to their brains by exposing themselves to this radiation. Even the conservative British journal The Lancet is warning that the dangers from this radiation can NOT be dismissed. My recommendation? Keep the use down to as low as possible (my use is less than five minutes per YEAR). Let's keep those brain cells alive!

Between 2000, when this article and others were published, and now a lot more information is available on this topic; please check the enclosed link: http://www.mybiopro.ca/The_Problem.aspx?ID=ej .

Many more towers have been built in those years. You can see them on numerous buildings in the city or near small towns and along the highways. If you receive a signal, you are in a beam that allows you to take your phone anywhere, even into the basements where you are surrounded by the cement walls. If the beam can go through the thick cement mass it certainly goes through every delicate cell in your body. Luckily you can protect yourself and your family by buying BIOPRO devices that counteract the damaging effects of Electromagnetic Frequencies and Radiation also known as ELECTROPOLLUTION: http://www.mybiopro.ca/The_Validation.aspx?ID=ej Dr. Mercola recomments RF3 technology, however I prefer BIOPRO patented and verified technology encased in their devices, described and available on my site www.myBIOPRO.com/ej Please take time to read the enclosed information and Dr. M's recorded message: http://www.mercola.com/forms/rf3_headsets.htm Related Articles from Dr. M's site:

Hands-Free Mobile Phones May Increase Radiation Exposure

Cell Phones the Newest Teen Addiction

More Mobile Phone Users Report Symptoms

Mobile Telephones Can Cause Dizziness, Nausea and Headaches

Study Links Cell Phones To Brain Cancer Risk

Jana
Information on EMF and BIOPRO devices exists
on my BIOPRO website: www.myBIOPRO.com/ej
"You cannot hurt your eyesight by looking on the bright side."

How does the BIOPRO Smart Card work Jaan ? I would enjoy reading your first hand explanation of the technical detail here. (I think that CR4 has a specific location for the commercially orientated posts).

Sorry for posting in the wrong place, will look for a specific location for the commercially oriented posts ... however, I hoped that you would explore some of the links and info behind them and tell me objectively if you find it interesting and/or alarming.

Here is a site covering this topic: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?cat=29

Here is another warning this time from Germany: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=797

Germany warns citizens to avoid using Wi-Fi

Monday September 10th 2007, 11:16 am
Filed under: DECT, Wi-FI, and WLAN wireless systems and health

http://environment.independent.co.uk/lifestyle/article2944417.ece

The Independent on Sunday

Germany warns citizens to avoid using Wi-Fi

Environment Ministry's verdict on the health risks from wireless technology puts the British government to shame.
By Geoffrey Lean
09 September 2007

People should avoid using Wi-Fi wherever possible because of the risks it may pose to health, the German government has said. Its surprise ruling – the most damning made by any government on the fast-growing technology – will shake the industry and British ministers, and vindicates the questions that The Independent on Sunday has been raising over the past four months. And Germany's official radiation protection body also advises its citizens to use landlines instead of mobile phones, and warns of "electrosmog" from a wide range of other everyday products, from baby monitors to electric
blankets.
The German government's ruling – which contrasts sharply with the unquestioning promotion of the technology by British officials – was made in response to a series of questions by Green members of the Bundestag, Germany's parliament. The Environment Ministry recommended that people should keep their exposure to radiation from Wi-Fi "as low as possible" by choosing "conventional wired connections". It added that it is "actively informing people about possibilities for reducing personal exposure".
Its actions will provide vital support for Sir William Stewart, Britain's official health protection watchdog, who has produced two reports calling for caution in using mobile phones and who has also called for a review of the use of Wi-Fi in schools. His warnings have so far been ignored by ministers and even played down by the Health Protection Agency, which he chairs.
By contrast the agency's German equivalent – the Federal Office for Radiation Protection – is leading the calls for caution. Florian Emrich, for the office, says Wi-Fi should be avoided "because people receive exposures from many sources and because it is a new technology and all the research into its health effects has not yet been carried out".

BIOPRO Smart Card has a photon captured in it; it is made from a non-corrosive light metal. It gives off what I call sympathetic energy that resonates into any liquid placed on the card or a piece of produce. The glass/cup may not have a tall stem, it must sit on the card. I put my coffee and water on it at work and am convinced that the flavour is enhanced. The analogy is of two tuning forks, one vibrating and the other one vibrating the same way though it was not activated. I listened to Dr. Carlo's technical explanation but I remember only this analogy. If a cut lemon is placed on the card it too has an enhanced flavour and stays fresh longer. I have one card in the fridge as well. People said that the produce lasted longer.

Dr. Carlo was hired by the industry to study the effects of EMF. When he proved that we should not use this technology, his contract was terminated. He decided to become a spokesman and warn people, especially young people, about the dangers; special type of cancer of the brain and eye develops in people who use the cordless/cellular phones a lot. One lady had even an outline of the phone on the skin. I heard on the TV news a few days ago that people who use their cell phones a lot should alternate sides as some people lost hearing.

I am not an expert in this field but I am convinced that this energy is detrimental, and that its intensity and presence is increasing. Dr. George Carlo and others I heard said that the electromagnetic waves change the cellular membrane from a healthy living thing to a damaged cellular enclosure that can be compared to an old tire. The damaged membrane does not let the nutrients to get inside the cells, and toxins and waste products cannot be removed. I wonder whether the damaged cellular membrane attributes to the poor cellular communication. Not every cell communicates with the immune system; cells in a cluster exchange messages and only a fifth one or so passes an info to a cell belonging to the immune system. If the cell is defective then it looses its ability to pass or receive a signal. Thus NK Cells, White Cells, T Cells, etc. do not become activated and cannot protect us from the pathogens. I think that it is possible that EMF could lower our immune responses because it damages the cellular structure. The immune responses are effective only if the cellular communication exists. Allergies and asthma are autoimmune diseases. They are a result of an overactive immune system. This means that the immune system did not get a signal to become doormat and wait for another signal to activate its own groups of the cell to eliminate a toxin or pathogen. I consider a protection not a foolish action, and tell everybody who is willing to listen about this new form of an air pollution. I saw a footage showing a doctor walking downtown Toronto and measuring the number of signals - they were everywhere and quite strong, criss-crossing the air in all directions.

I can only repeat what I heard but there are doctors who speak at conferences, Dr. Carlo is one of them, and they explain to the public why we should protect ourselves from the effects of the EMF. -- Jaan

No need for sorry Jann. It's just that occasionally Admin will delete/move stuff if they think it's a bit too commercial, so I was just trying to let you know. Your post is fine by me, and you've raised some really interesting stuff. I'm fully with you on concerns about how we plough ahead with wire-less - too much technology being deployed without long term research into effects. Trying to fine meaningful info on the subject is not easy, so I certainly appreciate your input on the topic.

Finally! I've been saying this for YEARS! Can we please get an objective open forum free from capital influences to establish baselines and quantify?

I wonder just how 'loud' we are today to any far-off 'listeners'. We probably sound like we look; chaotic, disorganized and out of touch as a whole!

cr3

Did you ever see the film 'Contact' ? - ET picks up Earths signals, and the first ones he seems to have found are war-time Nazi footage ( Oh no ! That's done for us). Luckily in that flight of fancy he decides to help us, but how far does a TV signal go - I have no idea ?

Man I love that movie. Jodie Foster rocks it!

Good point! I suspect we'll see evidence of harm in many places all at once and it will not be linked to wireless technology (officially that is).

Jules

None of those controlling major companies would ever be bought to account if suppressed data was found. Maybe I'm cynical, but that's the exact function of 'Corporate'. Divest blame to another corporate being.

This is changing tack, but has parallels : This mornings TV news (UK) was again covering the explosion of allergies in children. It seems to me that this is likely to be due to some aspect of modern life. Maybe in a decades time we will look back and think 'Doh, why did we race ahead with food additives,pollution levels, <insert worry of choice>, etc without long-term studies. That's a gross simplification, mainly because allergy is not this threads starting point, but I think doubts over EMF should at least alert us to err on the side of caution. The fact that people involved in promoting these kind of things will not expose themselves to test is 'strange'. I doubt that the board of Raytheon participated directly in ADS technology as test subjects. I may be blowing the discussion in a zillion directions, but there are common factors - rolling out new technology, safety, and accountability. Our ability to find technology accelerates faster than our ability to use it with full safety knowledge. For (say) the Victorian era, an exploding kettle on wheels did not have too far reaching an effect. We now have phenomena/technology we do not fully understand but can deploy on a mass scale. Mobile phones were used for a long time before anyone suggested using ear-pieces etc. What next ? " We made a mistake with the food additive we gave a European safety E number to". Wireless technology has not been used long enough for any certainty. Exaggerated panic can be as bad as none. I'd love to read an answer to all this in 50 years or so, but I'll be well past the sell by date by then. I just hope any descendants aren't. It's a bit like watching land-fill sites grow - someday, somebody is going to have to deal with that.

I think that should comprehensively stir the pot ! Just trying to draw in some common threads folks. I'll keep smiling and chatting because it's better than apathy.

Thank you Kris. I often wonder if the UK is a harbinger for the rest of the world. People used to say everything happens first in California and New York, but now I think everything happens first in the UK!

Jules

It's true that many American things migrate this way, and despite the typical Brit whining we love most of it. News coverage is (despite fewer channels) fairly comprehensive, though as with anywhere else, info needs double checking. Maybe, being a smaller country, less regional news means more time is devoted to world issues. As a gross generalization/stereotype there is a strong inclination to the garden shed/experimenter type of thing. It's that whole eccentricity loving culture thing that generates questions and innovation. America is probably just the same, we simply play up the small scale stuff more. We do have some cultural aspects that would leave positive thinking Americans weeping though - contrast aspirational American TV shows with Brit 'Kitchen-sink' drama. Looking at the negatives is probably an integral part of the whole. It all essentially works together which is (IMHO) why both sides of the Atlantic get along - poking fun, but working together in overall goals.

Oh I agree, in fact some really good stories come from the UK's Daily Mail.

I'm always checking up on UK news to see what's happening in the world.

Since you are already across the pond, anything new happening in the Wireless Debate?

Jules

We--elll....The debate on cell phones has rumbled on for years, but is a bit over shadowed by other things recently : Foot & Mouth, and just recently Blue-tongue. Allergies are always in the news, and I was just reading how hook-worm can be effectively used in dealing with it. That sounds weird, but apparently the worms dampen down the immune systems reaction with their own proteins ! Oops, going a bit off topic. I'll have a good read of the weekend papers (they usually provide a good summary of recent stuff) and see what's cooking with wireless. If you check timesonline it has some good stuff in various categories + a decent archive of articles. I'll get back with an update of what's current re wireless.

Hi All,

Here as a copied e-mail from a friend, a doctor I might add, who did not believe me that he should use "my" protective devices on his wireless phones. He is a regular cell phone user; he is disturbed by the studies and reports that suggest a possible link between the wireless phone use and cancer. What's been missing is an analysis of long-term cell phone studies – something that's been hard to come by because cell phone use has been a widespread phenomenon for only slightly more than a decade.

But now those first long-term studies are in, an analysis has been done, and the results are disturbing to say the least.

--------------------------------------------

Calling out around the world

--------------------------------------------

An x-ray creates ionizing radiation – a type of radiation that can increase cancer risk by disrupting normal DNA activity in your body's cells. Cell phones and microwave ovens emit non-ionizing radiation that does not affect DNA. So in theory, cell phones don't cause cancer – not by prompting DNA damage at any rate.

But a 2005 study in Turkey showed that long-term exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RFEMF) from cell phones could increase free radical levels in the brain, raising the risk of brain cancer. Again – nothing conclusive, just theory.

Which brings us to this new study from researchers at Sweden's Örebro University. > The Örebro team examined two cohort studies (in which medical records for subjects who used cell phones were compared to the records of subjects who didn't use cell phones) and 16 case-control studies (in which cell phone use among subjects with cancer was compared to cell use among healthy subjects). All of the subjects who used cell phones had used them for 10 years or more. The studies were conducted in the U.S., Japan, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany, and Britain.

Analysis of the research produced these results:

Most of the studies found a link between cell use and increased tumor risk.

Several studies found that cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas – cancers of the cells that protect nerve cells.

Several studies found a link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas – a benign tumor of the auditory nerve, which often results in deafness and balance problems.

Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell handset is used.

One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after ten years or more.

--------------------------------------------

The good with the bad

--------------------------------------------

There is a ray of good news here.

Professor Kjell Hansson Mild (one of the authors of the study) told the UK newspaper The Independent, that newer cell phones emit less radiation compared to phones that were on the market in the 90s.

But that's about it for the good news. The Independent also reports that previous research conducted by Professor Mild and his colleague. Professor Lennart Hardell showed that consistent use of cordless phones presents about the same risk as cell phones in the development of malignant glioma and acoustic neuromas.

The professors note that the greatest risk is among children due to the relative thinness of their skulls and the fact that their brains and nervous systems are still growing.

And there's one more disturbing development. If you checked the web site for the American Cancer Society, you would find a page titled "Do Cell Phones ause Cancer?" Here's what the ACS has to say: "This represents a legitimate area of scientific controversy and should not be dismissed as a myth."

When an organization as seriously mainstream as the ACS doesn't rubber-stamp the cell/cancer link as bunk, you know someone in the medical establishment is nervous about this topic.

Well, have you guys made a decision on this yet? I'm still curious...

Jules

That's right Yuval, no bots for me. I'm strictly bio and organic, genetically engineered to be a natural female by our Mutual Maker.

I've been off the GS radar as I was "retired" (happily) from writing the Wireless blog and newsletter in February 2007.

And now I'm back, unfettered by AI or any other corporate entity.

How are things in your life? What do you think of the latest wireless info?

Jules

And a great club it is, Yuval. Please feel free to include me again...now if only I can get this pesky scientific question answered. Is there anyone out there who cares about wireless? Guess not. On with the jokes then! Maybe we should get the UFO conversation going again, what do you think? That one was juicy.

As was mentioned above, the risk is probably there, not admitted by those who generate it and up to independent academic research to be linked to pathology. The risk is probably there, and is dependant on exposure to high frequencies, the higher the worst, for prolonged times, the longer the worst.

The microwave radio band is the most environmentally wide-spread also used by RADAR, Citizen Band radio (CB radio), FM radio, Cell-Phones and of course, the Microwave Oven, although heavily screened by a proper Faraday-Cage of the oven's casing.

Back to the responsible parties: They're not likely to admit pathological harm which will cut in their earnings, and as to the academy, most if not all of today's research is externally funded by interest-holding sources. You do the math.

The UFO Shtick was a good source of laughter, but it was like an inside joke because not even one decent troll came running to anti-preach or reveal their own "alien" experience, such as "It's teal, I was kidnapped, examined, poked, raped, etc..."

We could provoke some fake ones anonymously, dressed-up as 'guest', but by that time I was drained fresh out of anymore jokes.

'Panspermia' however, is as good as any, it may attract the weirdest characters to the eternal flame of human experience and knowledge. What say ya ?

Yuval, I agree with your short analysis of the wireless effect on health. As for panspermia, I personally like reading Dr. Lerma's interpretation of where human life came from and where we are going (back to). See here: http://drjohnlerma.com/home.html

I can't wait to read his next book. Wow!

Jules