By Laurie Baumgarten (11-02-07)

Welcome to South Berkeley. With its 14 cell phone antenna locations and an unknown number of actual radiation emitters at each location, South Berkeley has become Berkeley’s elektro-smog ghetto. Any Berkeley resident who lives in a neighborhood without antennas is probably using ours! As far back as 1996, the Communications Workers of America stated in their pamphlet called Your Community Guide to Cellular Phone Towers, “ In some cases, companies have chosen poorer sections of a town to build towers. Is this part of town being asked to house the eyesore and health hazard so the other side of town can use the phone?”

Read More...
http://www.berkeleydaily.org/article.cfm?issue=11-02-07&storyID=28387



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=electrosmog

WiFi, Mobile phones: Let’s not wait for a catastrophe before taking action
http://groups.google.com/group/mobilfunk_newsletter/t/324d84594294dfb2

--------

Effects of Electropollution On Hormones and Breast Cancer

Posted by: Dorothee Krien

The Following article appeared in Nexus Magazine, August-September 2007.

http://www.vitalitymagazine.com/effects_of_electropollution_on_hormones_and_breast_cancer

Electropollution, Hormones and Cancer
by Sherill Sellman, ND (c) 2007

--------

ElectroPollution, Hormones, and Breast Cancer

I recently read a report in Time Magazine about the drastic increase in the rates of breast cancer around the world. What I found extremely surprising - or not - is the fact that there was no mention of the probable effects of Electromagnetic Radiation on this increase. One wonders - or not - if this was not on purpose! I gave one of my pamplets today to a Chinese woman I work with and her response was "Thank you for the propoganda!" I am not sure if she fully understood the meaning of the word "Propoganda" or not but I replied to her "This in not propoganda. These are facts. What your government tells you is propoganda. What the cell phone companies tell you is propoganda, but this is not propoganda." :)

In the report entitled the BioInitiative, Dr. Martin Blank - of the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University - states very clearly on page 18 of "SECTION 7: Evidence for Stress Response (Stress Proteins) Health Risk of Electromagnetic Fields: Research on the Stress Response":

"An experiment on EMF stimulation of cell growth that has almost disappeared from the EMF literature is the work of Robert Liburdy (Liburdy et al, 1993). He reported that weak 60Hz fields can interfere with the ability to inhibit growth in MCF7 breast cancer cells. This finding has been replicated six times, but the original experiment and its replications have been ignored by many health oriented scientists (Liburdy, 2003), including the recent WHO review (BEMS Supplement 7, 2005). Even breast cancer researchers (e.g., Loberg et al, 1999), who have not been directly involved in the EMF debate, appear to be totally unaware of results showing the ability of weak 60Hz fields to affect cancer cell growth. It is shocking when an EMF research review by a presumably scientifically neutral WHO fails to even mention any of the papers that offers insight into the mechanism of a devastating disease that is so prevalent in the population (Blank and Goodman, 2006). Let us not forget the asymmetry in scientific proof (Popper, 1959), where a single reproducible harmful effect would outweigh all the negative results. The many replications of the Liburdy experiment have given us a crucial finding the question of EMF risk, and they cannot be ignored."

Art Kab

--------

Re: ElectroPollution, Hormones, and Breast Cancer

Looking at breast cancer rates and melanoma rates in different parts of the world clearly shows that there is a common factor. And I don't believe it is excessive sun tanning habits...

Take a look at the graph on p2 of my Newsletter for 2006 Jan-Apr.
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-78067/Newsletters.htm

Brgds, Örjan



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=cancer
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=breast+cancer
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=MCF7
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=stress+proteins
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=electropollution
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=World+Health+Organisation
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=BioInitiative
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Sherrill+Sellman
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Liburdy
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Martin+Blank

http://groups.google.com/group/mobilfunk_newsletter/t/c27b047f050cfd0d



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=birds

by Rosalind Peterson

Prepare yourself for more water shortages, floods, droughts, and a sharp decline in food supplies in the United States when U.S. Senate Bill 1807 & U.S. House Bill 3445, that were introduced on July 17, 2007, are voted into law. These identical bills, titled: “Weather Mitigation Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2007”, are moving forward at a rapid rate in Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Please note that these bills were not referred to Committees on Agriculture, Natural Resources, the Environmental Protection Agency, or Forestry, and that you were not invited to debate the merits of these bills by your elected representatives. “It is the purpose of this act to develop and implement a.......

http://www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind8.htm



http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Global+Weather+Control/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=com/Peterson