The age-old adage First Do No Harm should be the tempering goal of not only medicine, but government and industry, especially when they team up to deploy new technologies, set policies and serve the people.

This blog exists to reveal and analyze areas in which these powerful groups are failing to "first do no harm."

Monday, October 27, 2014

Tech expert: a lot of people could "have problems" from cell phone radiation...

 "If there is a problem, unfortunately, there's going to be a lot of people with problems..we're not gonna know for a while."

Translation: the industry and its crony regulators (and uninformed consumers) are willing to take the risk of cancers, heart problems, autism, insomnia, etc. while long term research continues - despite over 1800 modern studies showing biological damage from wireless such as allowed. (See MD Symposium to understand the science in no uncertain terms - what is being done to future generations.)

In other words, THE ONGOING RISK TO ALL (no one can avoid this radiation) has been condoned by industry and its crony regulators. EVERY PERSON is part of the involuntary EXPERIMENT. (You cannot be safe even if you choose not to use a device or service, since ambient radiofrequency/microwaves exposure continues to grow, increasing second-hand microwave radiation exposures everywhere).

Oct 27, 2014, 1:18pm EDT -

Apple Inc.'s iPhone 6 Plus Radiates More Than Samsung's Galaxy Note 3: Should You Be Concerned?

By Louis Bedigian October 1, 2014 10:54 AM

There has been a lot of talk about Apple Inc.'s (NASDAQ: AAPL) iPhone 6 and the radio frequency (RF) radiation dangers of storing it in a pocket.

Apple has been warning consumers about the risks of RF exposure for at least a few years. One document, iPhone 5 RF Exposure Information, can be found in the legal section of its site. Other warnings were also issued inside the manuals of older iPhone models, including the iPhone 3G.

“My take is like every other American. We just don’t know,” tech industry expert and analyst Jeff Kagan told Benzinga. "I hear some say that it's a radiation risk. I see others, mostly from the cell phone side, showing studies saying there is no risk. I don't know what to believe."

Related Link: The Apple Inc. Watch Versus Competitors: What Do Analysts Think?

Rob Enderle, principal analyst at Enderle Group, thinks Apple is warning consumers to "hold off any potential litigation that might result if suddenly a researcher did find that proximity to the radio was harmful."

"There has been a lot of (mostly anecdotal) information that radio waves close to your body could be unhealthy," said Enderle. "I think Apple is protecting themselves with [the warnings]."

At press time, Apple had not returned numerous requests for comment.

iPhone 6 Plus Vs. Galaxy Note 3

All cellular devices expose consumers to a degree of RF radiation. To determine the worst offenders, Federal Communications Commission requires manufacturers to test the SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) of each handset. SAR shows the rate at which humans absorb RF radiation.

Where does Apple fit in?

According to RF Safe, the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus have an SAR of 1.18 watts per kilogram when positioned near a user's head. That's below the legal limit of 1.6 W/kg, but it is nearly three time's greater than Galaxy Note 3, which has an SAR of just 0.35 W/kg.

RF Safe noted that when cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are running simultaneously, the iPhone 6's SAR jumps to 1.58 W/kg.

On average, most Samsung devices featured an SAR below 0.5 W/kg, while most iPhones had an SAR of 1.11 or higher. Only the original iPhone (0.974 W/kg) and the iPhone 3GS (0.79 W/kg) had lower SARs.

Motorola devices tended to have the highest SAR. The Droid Maxx, for example, has an SAR of 1.54 W/kg when positioned near a user's head.

Evidence Remains Unclear

"I think it's going to be a while before we have any real evidence," Kagan said of the possible dangers.

"If there is a problem, unfortunately, there's going to be a lot of people with problems. And if there's not a problem, there won't be. But we're not gonna know for a while. So what do we do? We either ignore it and carry our phones wherever we want, or we take the extra step and keep the phones half an inch away from our body."

Disclosure: At the time of this writing, Louis Bedigian had no position in the equities mentioned in this report.

 

Friday, October 10, 2014

WI: Public Service Commission records reveal PLEAS for smart meter opt outs due to health impacts, 2009-2014

What if your utility forced you to have latex or peanut fumes pumped into your home and yard in order to get service despite the fact even little amounts made you ILL? What if the top regulatory agency refused to make them accommodate your need for a meter that did not impair you?

Such is the case with wireless digital "smart" meters in Wisconsin and elsewhere. We researched the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin complaint records from January 2009 to June 2014 and found a stream of desperate pleas from customers asking to be accommodated with analog meters due to health impacts from smart meters. ALL were denied.

Luckily, awareness of the need to accommodate people with wireless biological reactions has begun in the U.S. schools. A Michigan boy and an LA teacher have each received accommodation for wifi-free computers in their classroom areas.

Testimony from LA teacher before the school board:




How long will it take for the utility monopolies to have to accommodate people IN THEIR OWN HOMES AND APARTMENTS? The bigger question may be will utilities and service commissions BE HELD LIABLE for denying accommodation as awareness grows? Because they should.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Share with doctors: symposium on electrosmog impacts, and what to DO

Here is one of the presentations given at C4ST about the impact of radiofrequency/microwave radiation, and how to deal with the damage. SHARE WITH YOUR DOCTORS and medical establishments.

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Quarentine, a novel idea?

At all levels, precautionary quarantine is smart in dealing with a deadly infectious disease, from the person and family level to the health care facility and community level to the national level.

America is asleep to the spread of Ebola. No one in leadership seems to care enough to try to protect people. One must ask what part of the word quarantine do leaders and agencies not understand? Is the CDC blind to biology? Are the President and Congress people ignorant of the need to protect the people here? If the U.S. falls, weakened by outbreaks, this nation will be less able to send supplies and help hard-hit countries, especially Africa.

Quarantine must be applied to protect everyone. Leaders and agencies need to show they understand biology and disease and apply this age-old practice at all levels. The refusal to promote quarantine creates serious questions about the intent or competency of those who hold the power.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

"Star Trek Syndrome" pandemic explains addiction to wireless

I propose the "Star Trek Syndrome"  (SSS) as the reason we have unsafe radiation emitting technology racing to blanket the whole environment - with no precautionary biological limits.

Let me explain the new term, which was casually used in a few discussion threads at various sites, but not codified since:
 
In Star Trek (and other fantasy and science fiction) you see "magic" gadgets that futurists and technology creators work to bring to life here and now. But to proceed unhindered, they must ignore the natural laws and science of Earth, and convince others to ignore them, too. Out-dated assumptions must be trumpeted. Any new science that would slow their "progress" must be ignored or shredded. Nothing must stop their dream!

Consequently, the public, you and I, mostly buy into the one-sided vision and its products because we are infected by "Star Trek Syndrome" beliefs. After all, if we saw this magic portrayed in TV and movies it must be okay!

Plus we (blindly) assume the "authorities" are protecting public health. (another aspect of this syndrome). And we become addicted to the new way of life, demanding more data and faster connection without a thought about the radiation. The authorities which benefit from the technology insist we have nothing to fear. Many of the authorities are infected by SSS, as well. Dissenters who think and read and question are labeled - luddite, paranoid, psychosomatic - in a fevered attempt to defend a harmful technology.

SSS is highly infectious and difficult to eradicate. Not everyone has caught it, but those who have cannot envision how to live using their own brain and wits or wired connections. Those who are not infected are few, but must try to warn others. It is not fun or convenient to tackle a pandemic, but for the sake of life itself it must be done.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

CDC weakens warning that could protect children, elderly

Does the CDC care about protecting our children or elderly or ill people from cell phone/radiofrequency radiation harm?
Judge for yourself if the CDC cares. Compare the three following versions of the CDC Cell Phone Safety page from three different time periods for content. Has the warning gotten stronger or weaker?

“Can using a cell phone cause cancer?”

A) Original version, June 2011
to May 2013: ““In the last 15 years, hundreds of new research studies have investigated whether health problems can be linked to cell phone use. Some of these studies have suggested the possibility that long-term, high cell phone use may be linked to certain types of brain cancer. These studies do not establish this link definitively. Scientists will need to conduct more studies to learn more about this possible risk.”

B) Precautionary update, June 9, 2014: “There is no scientific evidence that provides a definite answer to that question. Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use. More research is needed before we know for sure if using cell phones causes cancer.”

C) CDC Retraction of Precautionary update on current page, August 20, 2014: “There is no scientific evidence that provides a definite answer to that question. Some organizations recommend caution in cell phone use. More research is needed before we know if using cell phones causes health effects.”


Should people stop using cell phones?

A) Original version, June 2011 to May 2013: “
Cell phones can save time and even save lives. At the same time, the use of cell phones may carry some risks. These risks likely are comparable to other lifestyle choices we make every day.”

B) Precautionary update, June 9: “Scientific studies are ongoing. Someday cellphones may be found to cause health problems we are not aware of at this time.


C) CDC Retraction of Precautionary update August 20: “At this time we do not have the science to link health problems to cell phone use. Scientific studies are underway to determine whether cell phone use may cause health effects...”

 (3) Are children at greater risk from cell phone use?
A)  Original version, June 2011 to May 2013: "We are not aware of any study that has looked specifically at how radiofrequency exposure might affect children. We do know that children who start using cell phones early in life potentially will be exposed to radiofrequency for longer periods during their lifetimes.”

B) Precautionary update, June 9: "It’s too soon to know for sure. Children who use cell phones – and continue to use them as they get older – are likely to be around RF for many years. If RF does cause health problems, kids who use cell phones may have a higher chance of developing these problems in the future."

C) CDC Retraction of Precautionary update August 20: “It’s not known if cell phone use by children can cause health problems.”
 

 (4) What cautions should people with pacemakers take with radiofrequency radiation?
A) Original version, June 2011 to May 2013: "For most digital phones and pacemakers now in use, this does not have an effect if the phone is more than six inches from the implanted pacemaker."

B) Precautionary update, June 9, 2014 "If you have a pacemaker, keep cell phones at least 8 inches away from it."

C) CDC Retraction of Precautionary update August 20, 2014 "In the past, RF interfered with the operation of some pacemakers. If you have a pacemaker and are concerned about how your cell phone use may affect it, contact your health care provider."
 
So, the pacemaker warning is GONE. How does one go from 6 inches distance to 8 inches to NO warning? Plus, CDC does not issue any warnings for people with other medical implants, including deep brain stimulators, or even metal rods, which may concentrate RF energy and cause tissue damage. People with implants also have reported interference from WiFi and other sources of radiofrequency radiation.
 
Here is the new CDC disclaimer on its most recent language changes:

Why has the information on this page been updated?

CDC has not changed its position on health effects associated with the use of cell phones. The agency updated these cell phone FAQs in June 2014 as part of efforts to ensure that health information for the public followed best practices, including the use of plain, easy-to-understand, language. During this process, revisions were introduced which inadvertently led some visitors to the web page to believe that a change in position had occurred. The corrected FAQs are now available on this page.

CDC announces changes in public health policy and recommendations through publication in the peer-reviewed literature, usually accompanied by outreach to partners and a media announcement. We apologize for any confusion that resulted from our efforts to ensure that agency information is presented in easy-to-understand language.


 

 

 
xxxxx
wordpress statistics

Monday, October 27, 2014

Tech expert: a lot of people could "have problems" from cell phone radiation...

 "If there is a problem, unfortunately, there's going to be a lot of people with problems..we're not gonna know for a while."

Translation: the industry and its crony regulators (and uninformed consumers) are willing to take the risk of cancers, heart problems, autism, insomnia, etc. while long term research continues - despite over 1800 modern studies showing biological damage from wireless such as allowed. (See MD Symposium to understand the science in no uncertain terms - what is being done to future generations.)

In other words, THE ONGOING RISK TO ALL (no one can avoid this radiation) has been condoned by industry and its crony regulators. EVERY PERSON is part of the involuntary EXPERIMENT. (You cannot be safe even if you choose not to use a device or service, since ambient radiofrequency/microwaves exposure continues to grow, increasing second-hand microwave radiation exposures everywhere).

Oct 27, 2014, 1:18pm EDT -

Apple Inc.'s iPhone 6 Plus Radiates More Than Samsung's Galaxy Note 3: Should You Be Concerned?

By Louis Bedigian October 1, 2014 10:54 AM

There has been a lot of talk about Apple Inc.'s (NASDAQ: AAPL) iPhone 6 and the radio frequency (RF) radiation dangers of storing it in a pocket.

Apple has been warning consumers about the risks of RF exposure for at least a few years. One document, iPhone 5 RF Exposure Information, can be found in the legal section of its site. Other warnings were also issued inside the manuals of older iPhone models, including the iPhone 3G.

“My take is like every other American. We just don’t know,” tech industry expert and analyst Jeff Kagan told Benzinga. "I hear some say that it's a radiation risk. I see others, mostly from the cell phone side, showing studies saying there is no risk. I don't know what to believe."

Related Link: The Apple Inc. Watch Versus Competitors: What Do Analysts Think?

Rob Enderle, principal analyst at Enderle Group, thinks Apple is warning consumers to "hold off any potential litigation that might result if suddenly a researcher did find that proximity to the radio was harmful."

"There has been a lot of (mostly anecdotal) information that radio waves close to your body could be unhealthy," said Enderle. "I think Apple is protecting themselves with [the warnings]."

At press time, Apple had not returned numerous requests for comment.

iPhone 6 Plus Vs. Galaxy Note 3

All cellular devices expose consumers to a degree of RF radiation. To determine the worst offenders, Federal Communications Commission requires manufacturers to test the SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) of each handset. SAR shows the rate at which humans absorb RF radiation.

Where does Apple fit in?

According to RF Safe, the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus have an SAR of 1.18 watts per kilogram when positioned near a user's head. That's below the legal limit of 1.6 W/kg, but it is nearly three time's greater than Galaxy Note 3, which has an SAR of just 0.35 W/kg.

RF Safe noted that when cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are running simultaneously, the iPhone 6's SAR jumps to 1.58 W/kg.

On average, most Samsung devices featured an SAR below 0.5 W/kg, while most iPhones had an SAR of 1.11 or higher. Only the original iPhone (0.974 W/kg) and the iPhone 3GS (0.79 W/kg) had lower SARs.

Motorola devices tended to have the highest SAR. The Droid Maxx, for example, has an SAR of 1.54 W/kg when positioned near a user's head.

Evidence Remains Unclear

"I think it's going to be a while before we have any real evidence," Kagan said of the possible dangers.

"If there is a problem, unfortunately, there's going to be a lot of people with problems. And if there's not a problem, there won't be. But we're not gonna know for a while. So what do we do? We either ignore it and carry our phones wherever we want, or we take the extra step and keep the phones half an inch away from our body."

Disclosure: At the time of this writing, Louis Bedigian had no position in the equities mentioned in this report.

 

Friday, October 10, 2014

WI: Public Service Commission records reveal PLEAS for smart meter opt outs due to health impacts, 2009-2014

What if your utility forced you to have latex or peanut fumes pumped into your home and yard in order to get service despite the fact even little amounts made you ILL? What if the top regulatory agency refused to make them accommodate your need for a meter that did not impair you?

Such is the case with wireless digital "smart" meters in Wisconsin and elsewhere. We researched the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin complaint records from January 2009 to June 2014 and found a stream of desperate pleas from customers asking to be accommodated with analog meters due to health impacts from smart meters. ALL were denied.

Luckily, awareness of the need to accommodate people with wireless biological reactions has begun in the U.S. schools. A Michigan boy and an LA teacher have each received accommodation for wifi-free computers in their classroom areas.

Testimony from LA teacher before the school board:




How long will it take for the utility monopolies to have to accommodate people IN THEIR OWN HOMES AND APARTMENTS? The bigger question may be will utilities and service commissions BE HELD LIABLE for denying accommodation as awareness grows? Because they should.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Share with doctors: symposium on electrosmog impacts, and what to DO

Here is one of the presentations given at C4ST about the impact of radiofrequency/microwave radiation, and how to deal with the damage. SHARE WITH YOUR DOCTORS and medical establishments.

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Quarentine, a novel idea?

At all levels, precautionary quarantine is smart in dealing with a deadly infectious disease, from the person and family level to the health care facility and community level to the national level.

America is asleep to the spread of Ebola. No one in leadership seems to care enough to try to protect people. One must ask what part of the word quarantine do leaders and agencies not understand? Is the CDC blind to biology? Are the President and Congress people ignorant of the need to protect the people here? If the U.S. falls, weakened by outbreaks, this nation will be less able to send supplies and help hard-hit countries, especially Africa.

Quarantine must be applied to protect everyone. Leaders and agencies need to show they understand biology and disease and apply this age-old practice at all levels. The refusal to promote quarantine creates serious questions about the intent or competency of those who hold the power.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

"Star Trek Syndrome" pandemic explains addiction to wireless

I propose the "Star Trek Syndrome"  (SSS) as the reason we have unsafe radiation emitting technology racing to blanket the whole environment - with no precautionary biological limits.

Let me explain the new term, which was casually used in a few discussion threads at various sites, but not codified since:
 
In Star Trek (and other fantasy and science fiction) you see "magic" gadgets that futurists and technology creators work to bring to life here and now. But to proceed unhindered, they must ignore the natural laws and science of Earth, and convince others to ignore them, too. Out-dated assumptions must be trumpeted. Any new science that would slow their "progress" must be ignored or shredded. Nothing must stop their dream!

Consequently, the public, you and I, mostly buy into the one-sided vision and its products because we are infected by "Star Trek Syndrome" beliefs. After all, if we saw this magic portrayed in TV and movies it must be okay!

Plus we (blindly) assume the "authorities" are protecting public health. (another aspect of this syndrome). And we become addicted to the new way of life, demanding more data and faster connection without a thought about the radiation. The authorities which benefit from the technology insist we have nothing to fear. Many of the authorities are infected by SSS, as well. Dissenters who think and read and question are labeled - luddite, paranoid, psychosomatic - in a fevered attempt to defend a harmful technology.

SSS is highly infectious and difficult to eradicate. Not everyone has caught it, but those who have cannot envision how to live using their own brain and wits or wired connections. Those who are not infected are few, but must try to warn others. It is not fun or convenient to tackle a pandemic, but for the sake of life itself it must be done.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

CDC weakens warning that could protect children, elderly

Does the CDC care about protecting our children or elderly or ill people from cell phone/radiofrequency radiation harm?
Judge for yourself if the CDC cares. Compare the three following versions of the CDC Cell Phone Safety page from three different time periods for content. Has the warning gotten stronger or weaker?

“Can using a cell phone cause cancer?”

A) Original version, June 2011
to May 2013: ““In the last 15 years, hundreds of new research studies have investigated whether health problems can be linked to cell phone use. Some of these studies have suggested the possibility that long-term, high cell phone use may be linked to certain types of brain cancer. These studies do not establish this link definitively. Scientists will need to conduct more studies to learn more about this possible risk.”

B) Precautionary update, June 9, 2014: “There is no scientific evidence that provides a definite answer to that question. Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use. More research is needed before we know for sure if using cell phones causes cancer.”

C) CDC Retraction of Precautionary update on current page, August 20, 2014: “There is no scientific evidence that provides a definite answer to that question. Some organizations recommend caution in cell phone use. More research is needed before we know if using cell phones causes health effects.”


Should people stop using cell phones?

A) Original version, June 2011 to May 2013: “
Cell phones can save time and even save lives. At the same time, the use of cell phones may carry some risks. These risks likely are comparable to other lifestyle choices we make every day.”

B) Precautionary update, June 9: “Scientific studies are ongoing. Someday cellphones may be found to cause health problems we are not aware of at this time.


C) CDC Retraction of Precautionary update August 20: “At this time we do not have the science to link health problems to cell phone use. Scientific studies are underway to determine whether cell phone use may cause health effects...”

 (3) Are children at greater risk from cell phone use?
A)  Original version, June 2011 to May 2013: "We are not aware of any study that has looked specifically at how radiofrequency exposure might affect children. We do know that children who start using cell phones early in life potentially will be exposed to radiofrequency for longer periods during their lifetimes.”

B) Precautionary update, June 9: "It’s too soon to know for sure. Children who use cell phones – and continue to use them as they get older – are likely to be around RF for many years. If RF does cause health problems, kids who use cell phones may have a higher chance of developing these problems in the future."

C) CDC Retraction of Precautionary update August 20: “It’s not known if cell phone use by children can cause health problems.”
 

 (4) What cautions should people with pacemakers take with radiofrequency radiation?
A) Original version, June 2011 to May 2013: "For most digital phones and pacemakers now in use, this does not have an effect if the phone is more than six inches from the implanted pacemaker."

B) Precautionary update, June 9, 2014 "If you have a pacemaker, keep cell phones at least 8 inches away from it."

C) CDC Retraction of Precautionary update August 20, 2014 "In the past, RF interfered with the operation of some pacemakers. If you have a pacemaker and are concerned about how your cell phone use may affect it, contact your health care provider."
 
So, the pacemaker warning is GONE. How does one go from 6 inches distance to 8 inches to NO warning? Plus, CDC does not issue any warnings for people with other medical implants, including deep brain stimulators, or even metal rods, which may concentrate RF energy and cause tissue damage. People with implants also have reported interference from WiFi and other sources of radiofrequency radiation.
 
Here is the new CDC disclaimer on its most recent language changes:

Why has the information on this page been updated?

CDC has not changed its position on health effects associated with the use of cell phones. The agency updated these cell phone FAQs in June 2014 as part of efforts to ensure that health information for the public followed best practices, including the use of plain, easy-to-understand, language. During this process, revisions were introduced which inadvertently led some visitors to the web page to believe that a change in position had occurred. The corrected FAQs are now available on this page.

CDC announces changes in public health policy and recommendations through publication in the peer-reviewed literature, usually accompanied by outreach to partners and a media announcement. We apologize for any confusion that resulted from our efforts to ensure that agency information is presented in easy-to-understand language.


 

 

 
xxxxx
wordpress statistics