http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/wieso_man_die_tno_studie_replizierte.htm



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=TNO-Studie

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/sage_icnirp.pdf

--------

Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/

--------

Critiques of the ICNIRP guidelines

Dr Cherry's critique of the guidelines

http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/CellPhone/cherry2/ICNIRP-2.htm (2000,130 pages)

Critique of the strategy of ICNIRP by Dr. Michael Kundi, Professor at the Department for Occupational and Social Hygiene, Institute of Environmental Health, Austria http://www.salzburg.gv.at/Proceedings_(06)_Kundi.pdf

Dr. Gerard Hyland, Professor emeritus for Physics, Warwick University and on the Stewart committee.

The inadequacy of the ICNIRP Guidelines governing human exposure to the microwave emissions of GSM/TETRA Base-stations. G J Hyland, December 2003 http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/hyland_icnirp.pdf


Sarah



We have:-

Briefing Report on Electromagnetic Fields: Health Effects, Public Policy and Site Planning by the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine - August 2006

which can be found on:-

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/australian_journal_electromagnetic_fields_sage.pdf

We also have Dr Grahame Blackwell "On the Precautionary Approach and the Stewart & NRPB Reports" and The Ecolog Appendices, Translation and Synopsis.

http://omega.twoday.net/stories/708325/


Peter



International Guidance Levels
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/gen/intguidance.asp


From Mast Sanity/Mast Network



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Ziegelberger
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP+guideline+critique

From Lloyd Morgan:

Commentary: Cellular Phones, Cordless Phones, and the Risks of Glioma and Meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany) Schüz et al., American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access published January 27, 2006

This study, similar to all Interphone studies published to date, has several serious problems. For one, its core findings report no risk for glioma or for meningioma from “regular” cellphone use (”regular” use is defined as at least one incoming or outgoing call per week for 6 months or more). Yet, it reports a 2.2-fold risk of glioma after more than 10 years of cellphone use with a 94% confidence that this risk is not due to chance. Also, it found a 1.96-fold risk of high-grade glioma for women from “regular” cellphone use with a 98% confidence. Given the specific problems of the studyæall of which would underestimate the risk of a brain tumoræthese findings are ominous.

Here is a list of the main problems in this study:

1. The definition of a “regular” cellphone user is so minimal that almost all “regular” cellphone users would not be expected to be at risk, even if cellphone use is found to create a very high risk of glioma and meningioma.

As mentioned earlier, regular use as defined by all Interphone studies, is “at least one incoming or outgoing call per week for 6 months or more.” As to longer periods of “regular” cellphone use, this study reported only 14% of the glioma cases and 6% of meningioma cases used a cellphone for 5 years or more; for 10 years or more, the percentages are 3% and 1%, respectively.

To understand that “regular” cellphone use as defined in this study is so minimal that risk ought not to be expected, even if there is a high risk of glioma and meningioma from cellphone use, consider a hypothetical study of smokers and the risk of lung cancer. Would a risk of lung cancer (which is a high risk for smokers) be expected to be found for smokers who had smoked once a week, for 6 months or more with only 12 subjects (3%) smoking for 10 years or more?

2. There is a strong possibility of selection bias. Some 30.5% of controls refused to participate in the study compared to only 4.8% of glioma cases and 4.9% of meningioma cases. If a higher proportion of controls who participatedæcompared to controls who refused participationæused a cellphone, then any risk would be underestimated. This resultæan underestimated riskæseems to be at play in this study.

Some 58% of controls who refused to participate answered a question whether or not they used a cellphone. These groups of non-participating controlsæone of both sexes between the ages of 40 and 59 years of age, and another of men between 30 and 39 years of ageæprovided confirmation that a selection bias problem indeed existed in this study. That is, these non-participating control groups used cellphones less frequently than did the participating control group.

[There were two small exceptions to this selection bias: Controls between 60 and 69 years who refused to participate, and those that did participate, reported a common amount of cellphone use and so did not contribute, one way or the other, to selection bias. This group represents roughly 15% of the total controls. The only non-participating controls that reported higher use of cellphones compared to participating controls were females 30-39 years of age. This would have caused an overestimation of risk among a very small proportion (about 8%) of all the controls.]

3. Substantial funding of this, and all Interphone studies, comes from the cellphone industry with a resultant, but undeclared, conflict-of-interest. Though the study reports that this funding “was governed by agreements that guaranteed complete scientific independence” it seems doubtful that this “guaranteed” “scientific independence” is possible. Researchers’ careers are dependent on receiving research grants. Even with isolation of funding for a specific study from the researchers themselves, the conflict-of-interest in such funding is not resolved. Because the researchers know where the funding has come from, the old adage, “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you,” becomes the effective psychological reality (whether conscious or unconscious).

Friedman and Richter explored this concern by reviewing the conflict-of-interest problems found in studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine and The Journal of the American Medical Association during 2001. The paper found a strong association between those studies whose authors had an economic conflict of interest and, as well, reported positive findings (P <0.001, equivalent of greater than a 99.9% confidence). [3]

In the case of cellphone studies, could the findings of these industry-funded studies have a correlation with findings of no harm from cellphone use? It is interesting to note that the Interphone studies, all receiving substantial cellphone industry funding, consistently put forth press releases highlighting the “no risk” findings from cellphone use. But the Hardell et al. studies all independently funded consistently are finding a greater and greater risk from cellphone use with each new study they publish.


References:

1. Hardell et al., Case–control study of the association between the use of cellular and cordless telephones and malignant brain tumors diagnosed during 2000–2003; Environ Res. 2006 Feb;100(2):232-41.

2. Hardell et al., Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumors diagnosed during 1997-2003; International Journal of Oncology 28: 508-518, 2006.

3. Friedman and Richter, Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results; J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Jan;19(1):51-6.

Source: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=509

Bitte wollen Sie meine Handy-Warnung, die vom Bayr. TV stammt, an Ihre Leser weitergeben ?

Siehe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNT_gSUfDM

Peter Schneider

--------

Die Naila-Mobilfunkstudie
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/283426/

Die Naila-Studie (Präsentation)
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/520963/



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Das+Handy+macht+krank
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3318771/

Das erste Treffen der Electromagnetic Fields Discussion Group (EMFDG) hat am 2. März 2006 stattgefunden; an dem von Sir William Stewart geleiteten Meeting haben Schlüsselpersonen der Health Protection Agency (HPA), des Department of Health, der Mobile Operators Association (MOA) sowie Vertreter von Aktionsgruppen teilgenommen. Sir William hat die Diskussionsgruppe aufgefordert, ein Forum zur Verfügung zu stellen, um gesundheitliche Besorgnisse in Verbindung mit der Exposition mit elektromagnetischen Feldern zu berücksichtigen und Eingaben zur Entwicklung der Empfehlungen der HPA bereitzustellen. Die Health Protection Agency erklärt dass der Diskussion Aktionen folgen müssten. Es gebe Verpflichtungen gegenüber elektrosensiblen Menschen, Krebspatienten und vielen anderen Menschen, die an Problemen leiden, die sie mit elektromagnetischen Feldern in Verbindung bringen. Die Aufzeichnungen zu dem Meeting stehen nun auf der HPA-Webseite zur Verfügung. Das 2. Meeting ist für den 16. Oktober 2006 geplant.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/understand/radiation_topics/emf/emfdg/emfdg_minutes_2_3_06.pdf


Aus: FGF-Infoline vom 29.06.2006

Der Forschungsgemeinschaft Funk e.V. (FGF), gehören alle deutschen Mobilfunkbetreiber an.

A near-infrared spectrophotometry study Effects of mobile phone type GSM 900MHz signals on the cerebral blood circulation were investigated using near-infrared spectrophotometry in a trial on 16 healthy volunteers. Borderline significant short term responses of oxyhemoglobin and deoxyhemoglobin concentration were observed during exposure, corresponding to a decrease of cerebral blood flow and volume. These were smaller than regular physiological changes and these responses may be spurious and require further study. No dose-response relation or long term response was detected. Bibliographic information: Wolf et al., Optics Express, Vol. 14, No. 13, pp., June 2006, Abstract and Full Publication Text
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-14-13-6128

While the various cancer organisations in Australia and elsewhere continue to ignore the EMF cancer connection, the Canadian Cancer Society now gives clear advice on the issue. This is an IMPORTANT breakthrough which will be communicated to the many thousands of cancer self-help groups worldwide. With the information that was presented at the recent BEMS conference at Cancun, Mexico (see: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=505 ) the old ICNIRP and WHO assurances of safety are looking a bit irrelevant, to say the least. Perhaps Repacholi was very wise to retire at this time.

Don Maisch


From Robert Riedlinger:

http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,2939,3172_372086__langId-en,00.html


Advice from the Canadian Cancer Society

Electromagnetic fields

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are invisible lines of force that surround any electrical device. Examples of EMF sources include power lines, electrical appliances and cell phones. Based on current research, a cause and effect relationship between electromagnetic fields and cancer has been neither established nor ruled out.

Precautions that can be taken to limit a person’s exposure to electromagnetic fields include:

Increase the distance between yourself and the EMF source

*The strength of a magnetic field does not depend on how large, complex, powerful or noisy the appliance is. (In fact, the magnetic fields near large appliances are often weaker than those near smaller devices.)

*Stand back from an appliance when it is in use. Magnetic fields from appliances drop off dramatically in strength with increased distance from the source.

*Sit at arm’s length from a computer terminal.

Avoid unnecessary proximity to high EMF sources

*Don’t let children play directly under power lines or on top of power transformers for underground lines.

*Correct any household wiring problems, or update household wiring in an older home.

Reduce time spent within the electromagnetic field

*Turn off the computer monitor and other electrical appliances when not in use.

For more information
Health Canada
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Source: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=508

--------

Canadian Cancer Society...suggestions?

In your July 8, 2006 posting of Redaktion you cited - "Canadian Cancer Society advises on EMF's" and I was quite excited about that! However, they NOW appear to be taking a step backwards as they have updated their site as of July 13, 2006 with the addition of the words - "This position is now under review." Like my friend the nurse cited below the easiest option is to deny that this amazing technology could have made her sick or like Disney the lucrativeness of the cell technology is a financial sacrifice they now cannot pass up. The criticism reigned on the CCS by Wendy Mezley obviously made an impact (the CCS site updated at May 19 2006 was just in time for their major fundraising campaign Relay For Life in June - which I did NOT participate in this year), but now are they back paddling? I will continue to watch their site and see how/if their position changes. Perhaps they need a reminder where their obligations lie and who (citizens who generously donate) keeps them in business...or perhaps the CCS is kept in business by the very industry that is causing people to get cancer in the first place. This is a sinister thought, but this would not be the first time people are bribed for personal selfish reasons. Why else did the CCS not tell women that the Pill was implicated in causing breast cancer (July 2005) until Wendy Mezley pointed it out on global television (Mar. 2006)? Pharmaceutical companies and the cell industry benefit beyond measure if agencies like the CCS white wash the truth or hide the facts from the people.

I would like to know why the CCS is now reviewing its position on EMF's and for what purpose. Taking a precautionary stance with regard to EMF's was a step in the right direction. Suggestions as to what we can do?


From: Janice Burns


Subject: Canadian Cancer Society, Disney etc.
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:01:23 -0400

Greetings from Ontario Canada!

The Canadian Cancer Society who APPEARED to finally be taking a stand about EMF’s and advising a precautionary stance as of May 19, 2006, APPEARS to be waffling. They have now added this advisory to the beginning of their page on Prevention dated July 13, 2006 - “THIS POSITION IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW."

http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_372086__langId-en,00.html

I will save a hard copy of this page as well so that I can see how long it takes for the erosion or even removal of this precautionary advice. Below is the original CCS text dated May 19, 2006:

Electromagnetic fields Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are invisible lines of force that surround any electrical device. Examples of EMF sources include power lines, electrical appliances and cell phones. Based on current research, a cause and effect relationship between electromagnetic fields and cancer has been neither established nor ruled out.

Precautions that can be taken to limit a person's exposure to electromagnetic fields include:

·Increase the distance between yourself and the EMF source

· The strength of a magnetic field does not depend on how large, complex, powerful or noisy the appliance is. (In fact, the magnetic fields near large appliances are often weaker than those near smaller devices.)

· Stand back from an appliance when it is in use. Magnetic fields from appliances drop off dramatically in strength with increased distance from the source.

· Sit at arm's length from a computer terminal. Avoid unnecessary proximity to high EMF sources.

· Don't let children play directly under power lines or on top of power transformers for underground lines.

· Correct any household wiring problems, or update household wiring in an older home. Reduce time spent within the electromagnetic field.

· Turn off the computer monitor and other electrical appliances when not in use.

Last modified on: 19 May 2006

I have a friend who is a nurse. She got a brain tumour in the frontal lobe. I learned last year that when she was on-call at night, she would sleep with her cellphone under her pillow so that if there was an emergency at the hospital, an incoming call on the land-line would not disturb her husband. Apparently her doctor (a well known Toronto doctor) has warned her to stay away from “pesticides” as he felt that this was the cause of her tumour. When I told her about the possible connection between cellphone use and brain tumours, she of course thinks that I am misinformed.

As well, in the July 2006 issue of Good Housekeeping magazine published in the U.S. there is a full page Disney advertisement for cell phones, which offers GPS locating of your children. If you as a parent cannot visually see your young children in a mall for instance, a cell phone is not going to keep him or her safe from a predator. This is giving a false sense of security as well as encouraging lax parenting strategies, not to mention possible 24/7 radiation from cellphones.

Janice

--------

Review of ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2253406/

‘The fight goes on’
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2272126/

Si France 2 a diffusé il y a quelques jours un reportage assassin sur les dangers des portables, c’est bien parce que les opérateurs et fabricants de terminaux ont donné leur accord. Car c’est ainsi qu’ils entendent organise le contre-feu. Le débat sur le danger des téléphones portables a commencé au début des années quatre-vingt-dix. Bien sûr, on a d’abord pensé qu’il s’agissait encore d’une de ces rumeurs que ceux qui refusent le progrès s’ingénient à lancer pour empêcher les industriels de travailler tranquillement. Mais peu à peu a rumeur a pris corps et a été étayée par des études scientifiques, de plus en plus nombreuses. Aujourd’hui, on en est presque aux certitudes.

Après avoir traversé la peau les muscles du visage et les os du crâne, les on des électromagnétiques qu’émettent les téléphones atteignent, à 2cm de profondeur, la région la plus superficielle – mais aussi la plus sensible – du cerveau : le cortex ou écorce cérébrale. L’énergie électromagnétique est convertie en chaleur provoquant une élévation de la température du tissu cérébral. Au niveau du cortex, cette augmentation est d’environ 1°C et si l’on téléphone régulièrement et pendant de longues périodes, il n’est pas impossible que l’effet thermique finisse par léser l’ADN cellulaire et provoquer des tumeurs cancéreuses. On sait aussi que des ondes électromagnétiques d’une puissance cent fois supérieure à celle des portables (mais de même fréquence) cassent les chromosomes de la cellule en morceaux et les recombinent : la cellule devient cancéreuse. Les ondes électromagnétiques des portables pourraient avoir, à terme, le même effet.

S’il y a un lien entre portable et cancer, il doit se retrouver dans les statistiques. C’est le cas. En France, le nombre de décès par tumeur maligne du cerveau, pour les deux sexes, a augmenté de 31 % en dix ans. Aux Etats-Unis, on dénombre une vingtaine d’études épidémiologiques qui ont prouvé la multiplication des tumeurs. Il devient donc de plus en plus difficile de balayer d’un revers de la main les preuves qui s’accumulent. Du coup, opérateurs et fabricants de terminaux ont compris qu’ils avaient peut-être intérêt à ouvrir le débat sur ce sujet qui, s’ils ne le font pas, pourrait, dans quelques années, leur coûter très cher.

C’est ainsi qu’il faut expliquer comment France 2 a osé diffuser il y a quelques jours un reportage assassin sur la nocivité des portables. Sans leur accord tacite, cela n’aurait jamais été possible. Le reportage annonçait d’ailleurs incidemment qu’un « antidote » existait, qu’il était breveté et on peut parier qu’il sera prochainement intégré aux téléphones, en série. Ainsi, on ne pourra pas dire que les industriels n’ont pas pris toutes les précautions dès l’instant où les preuves scientifiques étaient établies. Il faudra même sans doute les remercier e leur prudence.

Il n’en demeure pas moins que l’on compte aujourd’hui 1,5 milliard d’abonnés au téléphone mobile dans le monde sans qu’aucune étude préalable de nuisance n’ait été faite. Conclusion : on a mené, sans aucun contrôle, une « expérience » médicale planétaire dont on ignore encore les conséquences sur la santé.

http://www.next-up.org/main.php?param=nouvellesdumonde21#1

Die Gandhi-Studie über DNA- und Chromosomenschäden bei Handytelefonierern ergänzt die im Labor gemachte REFLEX-Studie. Ich habe endlich einmal die Zusammenfassung übersetzt. Vielleicht möchte sie jemand auf seine Website setzen.

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/gandhi_dna_damage_deutsch.doc

Der direkte Zugang ist

Genetic damage in mobile phone users: some preliminary findings
http://www.ijhg.com/article.asp?issn=0971-6866;year=2005;volume=11;issue=2;spage=99;epage=104;aulast=Gandhi


Peter Schlegel

--------

Omega siehe auch unter:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1960035/

http://www.next-up.org/main.php?param=nouvellesdumonde21



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Carlo
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Portables+en+accusation