Tuesday, October 20, 2009

How 'Blind Are You' When Walking or Driving While Talking On The Cell Phone, Mobile Phone? Loss of Concentration & Focus On Task At Hand.




Just How Blind Are You When Talking on a Cell Phone?

October 19, 2009...7:21 pm

http://neuronarrative.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/just-how-blind-are-you-when-talking-on-a-cell-phone/

cell-phone-driving_smallEveryday in the news we see stories decrying the use of
cell phones while driving. Research reports aplenty have been released
estimating the percentage of ones attention siphoned by mobile jabber and how
little is left to focus on the highway.

This is great and I'm glad the discussion is happening, but it might be useful to ask whether cell phone use in other (non-driving) venues has a similar effect on attention. What better way to make the point that cell phone use is dangerous when driving than showing its effect on someone doing something not nearly as focus intensive like walking, for instance.

That's exactly what the authors of a new study published in the journal Applied Cognitive
Psychology
wanted to do. Researchers examined the effects of divided
attention when people are either (1) walking while talking on a cell phone, (2)
walking and listening to an MP3 player, (3) walking without any electronics, or
(4) walking in a pair.


The measure of how much attention is diverted during any of these
activities is called inattentional blindness“ not seeing what's right in
front of you, or around you, due to a distracting influence. If you've ever
watched the YouTube video of the gorilla walking through the crowd
of people passing around a ball, then you've seen an example of inattentional blindness (here is a great paper
on the effect downloadable as a PDF).


For the first experiment of the study, trained observers were
positioned at corners of a large, well-traveled square of a university campus.
Data was collected on 317 individuals, ages 18 and older, with a roughly equal
breakdown between men and women.

The breakdown between the four conditions
(with MP3, with cell phone, etc) was also roughly equal. Observers measured
several outcomes for each individual, including the time it took to cross the
square; if the individual stopped while crossing; the number of direction
changes the individual made; how much they weaved, tripped or stumbled; and if
someone was involved in a collision or near-collision with another walker.


The results: for people talking on cell phones, every measure
with the exception of two (length of time and stopping) was significantly higher
than the other conditions. Cell phones users changed direction seven times as
much as someone without a cell phone (29.8% vs 4.7%), three times as much as
someone with an MP3 player (vs 11%), and weaved around others significantly more
than the other conditions (though, interestingly, the MP3 users weaved the least
of all conditions).


People on phones also acknowledged others only 2.1% of the time
(vs 11.6% for someone not on a phone), and collided or nearly collided with
others 4.3% of the time (vs 0% for walking alone or in a pair, and 1.9% when
using an MP3 player).

The slowest people, who also stopped the most, were walking in pairs. In fact, next to the other conditions walking in pairs was the only one that came anywhere close to using a cell phone across the range of measures.

The next experiment replicated the first, but only one measure
was tracked: whether or not walkers saw a clown unicycling across the square.
And this was an obnoxiously costumed clown, complete with huge red shoes,
gigantic red nose and a bright purple and yellow outfit. Interviewers
approached people who had just walked through the square and asked them two
questions: (1) did you just see anything unusual?, and (2) did you see the
clown?


The results: When asked if they saw anything unusual, 8.3% of
cell phone users said yes, compared to between 32 and 57% of those walking
without electronic devices, with an MP3 player, or in pairs. When asked if they
saw the clown, 25% of cell phone users said yes compared to 51%, 60% and 71.4%
of the other conditions, respectively. In effect, 75% of the cell phone users
experienced inattentional blindness. (The discrepancy between the 8.3% and the
25% might be because the clown didn’t register as something “unusual� — this is,
after all, a university campus.)


So, coming back around to the original point — if using a cell
phone impairs attention as drastically as this study shows for people just
walking, could it by any stretch of the imagination be a good idea to use one
while driving?


One caveat to that concluding question should be mentioned: As
noted in the results, people walking in pairs–most likely talking to each
other–were next in line for inattentional blindness. This jibes with research
(discussed in this TIME article) indicating that talking to someone in your car
while driving is significantly distracting–perhaps not quite as much as chatting
on a cell phone, but in the neighborhood. Auditory cues, whether from a phone
or from the person next to you, divert attention. The problem with cell phones,
however, is that a user lacks the other set of eyes his co-chatter has to offer,
which could very well be the difference between being in an accident or getting
home safely.



Hyman,
I., Boss, S., Wise, B., McKenzie, K., & Caggiano, J. (2009). Did you see the
unicycling clown? Inattentional blindness while walking and talking on a cell
phone Applied Cognitive PsychologyDOI:
10.1002/acp.1638



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



A new study has shown that using a cell phone while walking is so
distracting that it causes inattentional blindness.


Washington, Oct 20 - ANI:

http://www.littleabout.com/news/40406,cellphone-usage-inattentional-blindness-walking.html#
Researchers at Western Washington University
investigated the effects of divided attention during walking.
Individuals were classified based on
whether they were walking while talking on a cell phone, listening to an MP3
player, walking without any electronics or walking in a pair.
In the first study, the researchers found
that cell phone users walked more slowly, changed directions more frequently,
and were less likely to acknowledge other people than individuals in the other
conditions.

In the second study, they
found that cell phone users were less likely to notice an unusual activity along
their walking route (a unicycling clown).
The study suggests that cell phone usage may cause
inattentional blindness even during a simple activity that should require few
cognitive resources. - ANI



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



Increased Fatalities From Cellphones Whether Talking While Walking or While
Driving


Main Category: IT /
Internet / E-mail

Article Date: 05 Mar 2009 - 4:00 PDT

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/141224.php#




Cell phones are a danger on the
road in more ways than one. Two new studies show that talking on the phone while
traveling, whether you're driving or on foot, is increasing both pedestrian
deaths and those of drivers and passengers, and recommend crackdowns on cell use
by both pedestrians and drivers.

The new studies, lead-authored by
Rutgers University, Newark, Economics Professor Peter D. Loeb, relate the impact
of cell phones on accident fatalities to the number of cell phones in use,
showing that the current increase in deaths attributed to cell phone use follows
a period when cell phones actually helped to reduce pedestrian and traffic
fatalities. However, this reduction in fatalities disappeared once the numbers
of phones in use reached a "critical mass" of 100 million, the study found.


These studies looked at cell phone use and motor vehicle accidents from
1975 through 2002, and factored in a number of variables, including vehicle
speed, alcohol consumption, seat belt use, and miles driven. The studies found
the cell phone-fatality correlation to be true even when weighing in factors
such as speed, alcohol consumption, and seat belt use.

Loeb and his
co-author determined that, at the current time, cell phone use has a
"significant adverse effect on pedestrian safety" and that "cell phones and
their usage above a critical threshold adds to motor vehicle fatalities." In the
late 1980s and part of the 1990s, before the numbers of phones exploded, cell
phone use actually had a "life-saving effect" in pedestrian and traffic
accidents, Loeb notes. "Cell-phone users' were able to quickly call for medical
assistance when involved in an accident. This quick medical response actually
reduced the number of traffic deaths for a time," Loeb hypothesizes.


However, this was not the case when cells were first used in the
mid-1980s, when they caused a "life-taking effect" among pedestrians, drivers
and passengers in vehicles. In those early days, when there were fewer than a
million phones, fatalities increased, says Loeb, because drivers and pedestrians
probably were still adjusting to the novelty of using them, and there weren't
enough cell phones in use to make a difference in summoning help following an
accident, he explains.

The "life-saving effect" occurred as the volume
of phones grew into the early 1990s, and increasing numbers of cells were used
to call 911 following accidents, leading to a drop in fatalities, explains Loeb.
But this life-saving effect was canceled out once the numbers of phones reached
a "critical mass" of about 100 million and the "life-taking effect" - increased
accidents and fatalities -- outweighed the benefits of quick access to 911
services, according to Loeb.

"The cell phone effect on pedestrian
fatalities" (Transportation Research Part E, Elsevier, Vol. 45, Issue 1, January
2009, with William A. Clarke, Bentley University, Waltham, MA,) looked at
pedestrian fatalities related to cell phone use; the still-to-be-released "The
impact of cell phones and BAC Laws on Motor Vehicle Fatality Rates" (Applied
Economics, Loeb, Clarke and Richard Anderson, New Jersey City University),
examines all cell-related traffic fatalities. Loeb and his co-authors used
econometric models to analyze data from a number of government and private
studies, including those by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
the Department of Transportation, MADD, and the U.S. Census Bureau, among
others.

He and his co-authors recommend that governments consider more
aggressive policies to reduce cell phone use by both drivers and pedestrians, to
reduce the number of fatalities.

Source: Carla Capizzi
Rutgers University



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









Human Kinetics / Excerpts







Walking while talking on a cell phone can be dangerous












By Richard A. Schmidt, PhD, and Craig A. Wrisberg,
PhD.

http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpts/excerpts/walking-while-talking-on-a-cell-phone-can-be-dangerous









Recent research suggests that walking and talking on a cell phone can be
dangerous (Hatfield & Murphy, 2007). In that study, the behaviors of more
than 500 pedestrians were observed as they crossed a street. Pedestrians who
were talking on a cell phone moved more slowly and were less likely to wait for
cars to stop or even look at traffic before setting out compared with those who
were not using a cell phone. These findings suggest that talking on a cell phone
is a form of cognitive distraction that can put pedestrians at risk.


These phenomena have also been demonstrated recently in studies about cell
phones and driving (see Strayer, Drews, & Johnston, 2003). It is not simply
the buttonpressing that is distracting; the conversation itself is
distracting—especially when you consider that button-pressing is brief and
conversation may be lengthy. This casts doubts about the effectiveness of the
recent bans on handheld cell phones (but not hands-free phones) while driving in
various U.S. states; because it is not only the action of the hands that is
distracting, these bans might not have very much effect on driver safety.


This is an excerpt from Motor
Learning and Performance, Fourth
Edition
.

An Excerpt published her by courtesy of : http://www.whiterockreporter.com

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Biological Effects; from 2311 Studies. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity::

Biological effects referring to 2311
studies
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

EHS is an expression created by the industry (as the nocebo effect...)
and spread around the world by the WHO, more specifically by M.Repacholi, to transfer the responsibility to people instead of admitting that they are environmental victims. EHS was known from long time as MICROWAVE SICKNESS or RADIO-FREQUENCY SICKNESS.

About that, you could download the 1972 report of the Naval Medical Research Institute in USA, admitting biological effects referring to 2311 studies !

You can download it at :
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD750271

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD750271&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
Very
Truly Yours.
Philippe Hug
PS : copy to all/DS

Published by

The 'White Rock Report'

JohanPublisher@gmail.com



Dr. Magda Havas Publishing 'hot off the press' website on electromagnetic pollution; 'children at risk in schools'. Alarming Reports.

The 'WhiteRockReport' October 18, 2009

Dear Audience.
This must be said before we go on.

In the midst of the reporting of all the bad news and hoaxes spreading like wildfire in North America; constant reports spiced to nurture sensationalism like the most recent from Colorado and a helium balloon and a six-year old alleged to have take a joy-ride over the skylines and supported by parents who should know better.

Hey..... this is ridiculous to notice CNN and News Reports and Larry King programming taking up so much valuable time wasted on totally useless and unproductive analysis and reporting which doesn't benefit anyone but the news agency and its advertisers, perhaps.

I ask CNN to 'Please come to order' and get your priorities straight.

So much for my negativity and constructive criticism this time.

'Electromagnetic Pollution and its damages caused in humans'.

The good news is that scientists are concerned and do forward their discoveries and theories in rapid pace.
Examples are the following interesting and verifiable and recognized sources of information.

On the topics of pollution, general and air, water and environmentally most contaminants are seemingly chemically induced and introduced into our models of lifestyles at our homes or work environments.

Protection, personal awareness and and vigilant observations and reporting are imperative components intended to 'report to prevent' and the call goes out to anyone concerned after reading a little on the most health focused challenges we may face today..the knowledge that we now stand the big risk of 'killing ourselves' by not heeding the dangers and warnings delivered on the topic 'electromagnetic pollution' and the fact symptoms are surfacing and establishing the illness and condition described as 'electro-magnetic hypersensitivity' in humans.

One source I can recommend and promote in this column, the 'White Rock Report', is Dr. Magda Havas, B.Sc., Ph.D. and she is involved and work with the Environmental and Resource Studies Program, Trent University
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada; Here is the contact info for your convenience:

Dr. Magda Havas, B.Sc., Ph.D.
Environmental and Resource Studies Program, Trent University
Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8, CANADA
email: mhavas@trentu.ca
phone: 705-748-1011 x7882
fax: 705-748-1569

Magda Havas is a scientist, researcher, author and writer on issues mentioned above. She is writing me this:

"Hi,

I have two new websites that are "hot off the press".
1. www.magdahavas.com deals primarily with electromagnetic issues intended for a general audience.
2. www.magdahavas.org is my academic website site that has my research on chemical contaminants and electromagnetic pollution.

Please visit the sites and let me know what you think of them. I plan to update them regularly (especially the general one) with hot topics and items in the news.

Feel free to link to these sites, as you see fit, and to send them to those who many be interested in the information provided.

-magda
Publish Post


____________________________
Dr. Magda Havas, B.Sc., Ph.D.
"
-end of quote -

It's a pleasure and my sincerest wishes this information is being processed, digested and made notes of in every home, by every family and parent anywhere.

I ask you to become part of the puzzle and the solution and the global network and movement to protect our children from the negative consequences caused by 'wireless; devices, cell phone towers and many more 'contraptions for convenience' that must be modified, re-developed and made safer

You will read and know about the fact supporting the claims and warnings to parents and their children at home and at school 'not to use wireless technology' not accept wireless Internet access in the school and home or work environments.

"Don't microwave your brain" and don't let your young ones become victims of 'tools of convenience' not yet tested, but still being sold in the global market places.

Pass this article on to anyone you may think would be concerned about juvenile health issues; child brain safety and more...

Johan Sandstrom, BComm.
Publisher
The White Rock Report
www.whiterockreporter.com
Johan@whiterockreporter.com

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Awakenings in White Rock, BC Available and Services for sale; Focal Point of the 'esoteric' and uncommon for most folks


Intuitive Fractal Readings - Fractal art, also known as Energy Art
. Featured in magazines in Canada and the US. Fractals emanate and express energy. Wonderful for moving energy in the home or office. Perfect for Feng Shui remedies. Personal intuitive fractals created from an individuals unique energy pattern, aura and soul vibration. By Fractal Artist Cheryl Lee Harnish.

Orgone Generators by Reinhard Stanjek
- Orgone Generators change negative EMF (ElectroMagnetic Energy) into pure, positive life energy. All living organisms find positive orgone beneficial to health and wellbeing. These devices purify the energy emitted from cell phones, computers, microwaves and more. Richmond - Vancouver, BC.

Feng Shui Consultant Vancouver Victoria Balancing Essentials
- Offering solutions to your health, wealth and different wellness concerns through seminars, classes, corporate, home and business consultations. Marlyna Los is a classically trained Feng Shui Consultant who travels world wide to teach and consult. Office locations - Vancouver and Victoria.

Hypnotherapy Schools - Vancouver, Hypnotherapy Training Coastal Academy Of Hypnotherapy, “Helping Others To Heal” White Rock, BC. Train to become a Certified Clinical Hypnotherapist. Registered with the International Medical & Dental Hypnotherapy Association.

Hypnotherapy Surrey Langley BC Kim's Hypnotherapy, Quit Smoking, Lose Weight Naturally, Relationship Healing, Energy and Chakra Work and Past Life Regressions. Kim is a Certified Clinical Hypnotherapist who can help you make the changes you need through hypnosis. Safe and quiet environment. "Helping You Find Inner Peace".

Printing - Digital Printers, Langley We are the professional's choice of printers. Digital printing of business cards, brochures, wedding invitations and more. Serving Langley, Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC

Monday, October 12, 2009

Our Children Are In Danger; Cancer Kills; Electro-Magnetic Hypersensitivity; a New Epidemic...

Electro-Magnetic Hypersensitivity - Symptoms and Cause of...notes: "Cancer is Big Business, per se"

"Martin,

I'm attaching an article from our local newspaper because it marks
the first time an Irish municipality has challenged county and
national bodies on the issue of EMFs following a visit here by Prof.
Olle Johansson in March. It took them long enough. Unfortunately, they
didn't challenge police authorities over the erection of a Tetra mast
at the local police station within 1,000 metres of 5 schools and 2,000
children.

Our website is
www.eirewaves.com
where you can find Prof. Johansson's presentation.

Kind regards,

John Weigel

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

Note: The presentation by Prof. Olle Johansson is excellent and well worth
watching and listening to!
Martin"



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Radiation: A silent killer among us Published By Times Herald Posted: 10/11/2009 01:00:30 AM PDT

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/opinion/ci_13537635

Notice to all parents:
Since there exists no official agency empowered to regulate, monitor or enforce the public's exposure to dangerous microwave radiation, and our Federal Communications Commission has allowed the telecommunications industry to dictate the laws since 1996 and abdicated its duty to protect the citizens, the wireless industry is saturating our environment with deadly microwaves 24-7.

As new toys are invented, the relay transformers on existing cell phone towers are increasing and thousands more are being built.

Over the past years, many research studies around the world have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that our children, still developing their immune systems and brain cells, are extremely vulnerable to microwave radiation.

This is perhaps the most likely reason our country is suffering from cancer clusters among our children, an epidemic unprecedented in our history.

While the rest of the world, even China and Russia, have established strict guidelines of acceptable radiation exposures, which are hundreds of times lower than the United States' recommended levels, we ignore the issue because we are too busy buying cell phones for our kids (not allowed under 18 years of age in Europe), Blackberry's and other toys, building new cell towers, building more oncology clinics, selling more drugs for our pharmaceutical companies, and planning "walks" for cancer research.

Cancer is big business.

In measuring the microwave radiation levels around the existing cell towers in Vallejo, I am ready to move to the country. The energy from the fake tree on Springs Road and Springstowne Middle School is enormous, extending full strength across the entire playing-field. Our children play in this field every day.

There is also a violation of the "Radiation Hazard" sign required by the FCC, as it is obscured and cannot be read.

There are other areas that can be categorized as extremely intensive: The tower at Jesse Bethel High School, City Hall buzzing from the transformers on top of the senior care facility across the street, the top of the hill at St. Vincent's church,(is the mayor's office on the third floor?), Lemon Street, Valle Vista Street, and the intersection of Sonoma Boulevard and Highway 37.

American Canyon and Highway 29, meanwhile, are off the scale. Why are the cell phone transformers on top of the school gym at Vallejo Jr. High School? Why are they on the roof tops of the Benicia schools?

The worst case scenario is the horrific specter of being in a crossfire, confined in the center of two powerful cell phone microwave towers. Such is the case in Fallon, Nev., where there is a government conspiracy of silence in regards to the children's cancer cluster in this quaint high desert town.

Another area of concern is the Blue Oak School in Napa, three stories high, caught in the middle of the AT&T building and the powerful tower at City Hall. To add a measure of plausibility, review the latest lethal weapon of our military:

The "Microwave Gun" designed for crowd and riot control.Remember the American Embassy in Moscow when it was under continuous microwave radiation? Call the FCC in San Francisco and ask them who is in charge. Ask them why they allowed the law which states that the public "cannot protest the placement of a cell phone tower for health risk hazards, only for aesthetic reasons."

This is absolutely true. Call the California Department of Public Health, or the Solano County Health Department, and you will be talking to Laurel and Hardy. If you are in close proximity to one of these cell phone towers, you should be concerned.

Most countries prohibit these towers from being erected near schools, but we place them on school property. Parents, there are many credible sources for you to research and you will be amazed.

We must get involved because this is a critical health issue we simply cannot ignore.
Source: Lyndon E. Lafferty

Compliments of the Editor.

JohanPublisher@Gmail.com

www.whiterockreporter.com

Friday, October 9, 2009

French Senate Moves to Ban Mobile Phones in Schools"

'Desired Actions on the part of School Authorities World-wide Expressed; excerpts to read.' - Editor 'The White Rock Reporter'.
Quote:
"French Senate Moves to Ban Mobile Phones in Schools"

Credits/author; Peter Sayer, IDG News Service
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/173408/french_senate_moves_to_ban_mobile_phones_in_schools.html
Friday, October 09, 2009 9:00 AM PDT


Pupils at French primary schools and middle schools could be banned from using mobile phones in school under draft legislation approved Thursday by the French Senate.

The measure, proposed by the government, is just one clause of an enormous piece of environmental legislation that must still be debated by the National Assembly before it has any chance of becoming law.

The restriction on phones was the subject of vigorous debate on Wednesday, with one senator pushing for the ban to be limited to the classroom for older pupils, so that they could make calls in the corridors during breaks.

Many schools already ban the use of phones in their code of conduct.

Nevertheless, school teachers report that pupils regularly exchange text messages in the classroom, with some occasionally even making or answering calls there, making it difficult to maintain classroom discipline.

The proposed legislative ban, though, is for health rather than educational reasons, with the government wanting to apply the "principle of precaution" in the absence of guarantees that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phones is perfectly safe for young children.

The government is in the middle of a long consultation of the effects on health of emissions from mobile phones and transmitter masts. The French Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health Safety is expected shortly to publish the latest in a series of regular reports for the government on the health and safety of mobile phones.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"French Senate wants cellphone ban for kids"
Last Updated: Thursday, October 8, 2009 |
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/10/08/france-cellphone-ban.html
France's Senate wants to forbid children in primary and middle schools from using cellphones, amending a sweeping environment bill to include such a ban.

Senators added a line this week about cellphones to an article of the bill on exposure to communications equipment "posing a risk to health."

The measure would ban pupils up through about age 14 from using cellphones in school. It also approved a measure banning cellphone advertising that targets children under 14.

The changes would need approval by the lower house of parliament, the National Assembly. Both houses are dominated by President Nicolas Sarkozy's party UMP.

A poll published Tuesday says many French pupils use cellphones in class even when school rules forbid it.

An investigation by CBC's Marketplace last year found experts who raised concerns that excessive cellphone use was not safe for children. Studies have found cellphone signals penetrate farther in the brains of children.

In July 2008, Toronto's department of public health issued an advisory that teenagers and young children to limit their use of cellphones to avoid potential health risks.

The advisory — believed to be the first of its kind in Canada — warned that because of possible side effects from radio frequencies, children under eight should only use a cellphone in emergencies and teenagers should limit calls to less than 10 minutes.

"Teach them the ways to use a cellphone responsibly — to make shorter calls, to use other modes of communication; if it's possible, use a land-line," said Loren Vanderlinden, a health department supervisor and the report's author.

The Marketplace survey of 1,084 kids between the ages of nine and 13 across Canada found that just under 40 per cent of kids had their own cellphone. The average age of when they got their first cellphone was 10.5.

Only 7.5 per cent said they used a headset with their cellphone.

With files from the Associated Press



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


"Cell Phones and Cancer: How To Stay Safe"
by Dr. Andrew Weil

Founder and director of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine
Posted: October 9, 2009 03:13 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/cell-phones-and-cancer_b_315714.html

Do cell phones cause cancer? The question has nagged researchers and users for the entire time - roughly the last 20 years - that these phones have been in common use.

The Food and Drug Administration's website states,

"The weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems."

The FDA emphasizes that cell phones emit low-level, non-heating radio-frequency (RF) energy, rather than electron-stripping ionizing radiation, the type proven to permanently damage tissues and disrupt DNA.

But damage from RF energy may be cumulative over very long periods. Since cell phones show no signs of going away - indeed, most American children today face a lifetime of exposure - it's vital to focus closely on the most recently published studies, the ones that show the effects of longer-term exposure.

I am not persuaded that the FDA has done that sufficiently.

Recently, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization that advocates for health-protective policies, has reported on key studies (including, crucially, several recent ones, published from 2007 to 2009) that link radiation from long-term cell phone use with increased risks of brain and salivary gland tumors, migraines and vertigo, as well as behavior problems in children, including hyperactivity.

Among the findings cited:

* An analysis of 25 earlier studies by two research groups showing a 50 to 90 percent increase in the risk of glioma (a brain tumor that is frequently malignant) on the side of the head favored for cell phone use in individuals who had used cell phones for more than 10 years. It also showed a 60 percent increase in acoustic neuromas, benign but troublesome tumors of a cranial nerve among long-term cell phone users
* A 50 to 60 percent increased risk of salivary gland tumors among people who used cell phones frequently.
* A 10 to 20 percent increased risk of hospitalization for migraine and vertigo among long-term cell phone users.
* An 80 percent increased risk for emotional and hyperactivity problems among young children who use cell phones and whose mothers used cell phones during pregnancy.

All of this sounds very alarming, and it is not good news, but it is important to keep the numbers in perspective. When speaking in terms of a percentage increase in risk, bear in mind that if, for example, one person out of 100 is normally at risk of a brain tumor, a 100 percent increase in risk means that two people out of 100 would be at risk.

It does not mean that as a cell phone user, you have a 100 percent chance of developing a brain tumor. The actual risk to a given individual indicated by these studies is quite small.

Still, I believe prudence is warranted.

The EWG report maintains that current U.S. government radiation standards are outdated. It noted that in 2008, the European Parliament passed a resolution urging member countries to develop lower radiation limits for cell phones - no such steps have been taken in the U.S.

Here, particular concern is focused on the amount of radiation that could penetrate a child's softer, thinner skull (roughly twice the amount that could penetrate an adult skull) and that long-term cell phone use starting in childhood could pose even bigger risks than those already documented.

Experts in the U.S. and Europe have advised limiting youngsters' cell phone use.

Fortunately, the smart response to this report is not necessarily to abandon or even curtail cell phone use, but rather to use them more carefully.

The saving grace of cell phones is that, like all point-sources of radiation, they obey the inverse-square law: the strength of an electromagnetic field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source point.

This means that if you move the phone twice as far away from your head, you get one quarter the RF; move it three times farther, you get one-ninth the RF. So rather than clasping the phone to your ear (roughly one inch from your brain), use the phone in speaker mode (roughly 15 inches from your brain) and you'll drop the RF to your brain to a mere 1/225th of the against-the-ear dosage.

Aside from that, the EWG check list for safe cell phone use is similar the safety tips I've been recommending for some time:

* Save long conversations for land-line phones.
* Use a headset or the speakerphone setting, and keep the phone itself away from your body.
* Find out how much radio-frequency energy your cell phone emits. This measurement is called the Specific Absorption Rate or SAR. The SAR permitted in the United States is 1.6 watts per kilogram. The FCC maintains a list of the SAR of various phone models; the EWG also has a simple tool to check your phone's emissions.

Specific Absorption Rate or SAR. The SAR permitted in the United States is 1.6 watts per kilogram. The FCC maintains a list of the SAR of various phone models; the EWG also has a simple tool to check your phone's emissions.

The EWG also contends that the U.S. government should require phones to be labeled with their radiation emissions at the point of sale. I agree.

Andrew Weil, M.D., is the founder and director of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine and the editorial director of www.DrWeil.com. Become a fan on Facebook and follow Dr. Weil on Twitter.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/cell-phones-and-cancer_b_315714.html

Above is a contribution/distribution text voluntarily posted for your pleasure and information.
Compliments of:
Johan@whiterockreporter.com
http://www.whiterockreporter.com

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Are Bees Our Next Challenged 'Wonders of Our Nature'; To Become Extinct?!

Are Bees Our Next Challenged Species?..'for without the bees shall we not survive..' - Johan Prost

"Radiation from transmitters wipes out bee colonies which will affect food production."; -Editor

" Honeybees face towering threat from mobiles VR Jayaraj | Kochi http://www.dailypioneer.com/203392/Honeybees-face-towering-threat-from-mobiles.html Radiation from transmitters wipes out bee colonies which will affect food production: Study Studies in Kerala have brought out evidence to support the theory of colony collapse disorder (CCD) among honeybees due to bio-active microwave-radiation from mobile phones and their relay towers, which leads to extensive disappearance of entire worker bee colonies. This could result in disruption in food production because most of the crops depend on bees for pollination.

Although the theory of mobile towers leading to CCD is yet to be proved anywhere in the world, experts say this is highly possible and the phenomenon could cause unimaginable food troubles to most Indian States, especially Kerala which is already food-scarce. The State has the highest density of mobile towers.

The phenomenon of (suspected) mobile tower-induced CCD and resultant crop loss were first noticed in the US several years ago, but this had spread to most European countries by 2007. Now, experiments by Sainuddeen Pattazhy, a researcher and dean in the department of zoology at SN College, Punalur, Kerala, have found that worker bees fail to return to their hives when their navigation skills are interfered by the mobile microwaves. Sainuddeen had conducted his experiments by placing mobile phones near beehives (as some scientists in the West had done earlier).

He found that these hives collapsed totally in five to 10 days with the worker bees failing to return to their homes, leaving the hives with the queens, eggs and immature bees. The vanished bees were never found, but the assumption was that they died singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives.

"The navigation skill of the worker bees is dependent on the earth's magnetic properties. The electro-magnetic waves emitted by the mobile phones and relay towers interfere with the earth's magnetism, resulting in the loss of the navigation capacity of the bee. Then it fails to come back. Also,the radiation causes damage to the nervous system of the bee and it becomes unable to fly," said Sainuddeen.

The researcher had earlier led a study on the impact of mobile phones and towers on ecology, in which other environmentalists had participated. The study revealed that bio-active radiations from mobile towers threatened the very existence of home sparrow, which lived in colonies close to human habitats, even in crowded cities.

Pattazhy, however, is not the first scientist to notice the phenomenon of CCD occurring in bees due to mobile phone-tower proximity. A limited study at Landau University in 2007, headed by Dr Jochen Kuhn, had found that bees refused to return to their hives when mobile phones w!
ere placed nearby.

As back as in late 1990s, a researcher, George Carlo, had headed a massive study sponsored by the US Government and the mobile phone industry in America, had said, "I am convinced that the possibility is real."Apiarists in Idukki, Kottayam, Pathanamthitta and Wayanad districts confirm that they have been noticing the massive play of CCD for the past four or five years, but they have never thought of the relation between mobile tower-induced radiations and their bees.

A beekeeper in Thodupuzha, Idukki said he had lost 13 of his 17 hives in the past three years. Three years ago, three mobile towers were erected on the hillock near his farm. "But I have never thought of the relation. I, like other farmers, was thinking that climatic changes and pesticides used in the rubber-plantations were the reason," he said. Scientists warn that Kerala, which already has a large number of mobiles and towers, could face not just CCD-created hive losses but even a crop disaster if the mobile craze continues to grow. "Honeybees can be wiped out in
Kerala and many other Indian States and cities if there is no system to control the unscientific increase in the use of mobile phones. It can in turn lead to a disaster in the food front as bees are responsible for pollination in most of the food crops," said a biotechnologist at a Coimbatore college. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Angela Flynn.

"Evelyn Savarin has submitted comments to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, regarding the recent 'Hearing on Cell Phones and Health'.

I strongly urge people to write in as well.
Even just a quick note saying that you want action on this, will suffice.
I am copying Evelyn's comments below. Her 'write up' is a landmark report on what is happening and what needs to be done.

Please send to:
Dear Members Subcommittee on Labor HHS & Education, In addition put in Topic -"Re:"; Contact info -" Your Name, Organization (if desired), State, phone, email" Email to: "Curtin, Teri (Appropriations)" Teri_Curtin@appro.senate.gov --------------------------------------------------

From:
Evelyn Savarin Re: Subcommittee Hearing Sept 14, 2009 on Cell Phones and Health Dear Members Subcommittee on Labor HHS & Education,

"Thank you for holding the hearing on Cell phones and Health. Many of us in the hearing room that day have been impacted by wireless radiation in ways that have drastically altered our quality of life and health. Your sub-committee's initiative to hold a hearing of this sort represented a major ray of hope for many of us who have long sought federal recognition and action on this issue.

All measures presented to limit direct cell phone contact are necessary first steps. Although restricting cell phones to children should still be a top priority, it should become clear from the remarks of the hearing, ambient cell phone radiation, for that matter all background wireless radiation, poses as many challenges, hazards and questions.

Including Cordless Phones in Precautionary Warnings A concern of mine was the exclusion of cordless phones from the discussion of precautionary warnings. Often cordless phones are given a casual seal of approval for it is believed they are much lower powered than cell phones and therefore presumed to be safe.

This idea is very misleading and potentially harmful. In fact, manufacturers of cordless phones state in their manuals to stay at least 9 inches away from the bay station. This cautionary statement should give us pause as to the potency of the bay station's ambient signal, not to mention the phone's own powerful effects.

The claims cordless phones are safe because they are lower in watts than cell phones is a flawed analogy. To begin, cordless phones operate at much higher frequencies - 6G vs the new 3G of cellular phones. Compared to cell phones the bay stations emits at higher watts than cell phones and the stations operate 24/7, with signals reaching well beyond the boundary of one's household. It's like having mini cell antennas in your home. RF/Microwave Signal Potency on the Body Wattage is only a small part of the concern when evaluating signal's potency on the body.

Researchers are finding more and more we need to take as seriously other factors in a signal's propagation, such as waveform, frequency, pulsing pattern, resonance with the body, and body's vulnerabilities. 1,2,3,4 Scientists are also finding a sometimes higher frequencies, can induce more biological response than a lower frequency at presumably higher power levels. 5,6 Industry supporters that state lower wattage makes new phones safer without taking into account other signal factors totally obscure the science and play into the hands of the uninformed user.

Clearing Misconceptions between Radio and Microwave Frequencies In order to avoid the negative images that may be associated with title of 'microwaves', all our wireless devices seem to be popularly addressed as 'radio frequency' products.

Although the line of distinction between RF and microwave may vary, it is well accepted that many of our new household wireless technologies operate in the Microwave band. A cell phone operating at 2 to 3 GHZ or cordless phone operating at approximately 6 Ghz, are definitely in the microwave band. In fact new Microwave ovens now operate between 1 & 2 Ghz. Should we now call them Radio Frequency Ovens? In FCC radiation standards standing 5 inches from a microwave oven door are more stringent than those for putting cell phones to the head. All these issues show how easily we can spin the terminology to dilute the potential risks.

Dr. Segal Szediski Research has Troubling Implications Dr. Szediski presentation highlighted the need for a precautionary approach on cell phones for children, as well as the use of use earpieces. However, an observation she made on her research has troubling implications. Her research found higher incidence of brain cancers in the countryside from cell phone users than in the city where cell antennas are more dense.

This observation follows along the line of her remark that exposure from cells phone radiation in elevators is stronger because transmission is weak. My concern is - will the solution become more frequent dispersion of cell antennas to reduce phone emissions?

This would have a devastating effect on future brain cancer/tumor studies. If brain cancer rates continued to rise, separating brain cancer incidence between non-users, light users and long term heavy users of cell phones would be impossible to observe.

The entire population will become equally exposed either by background RF or direct wireless phone use, effectively leaving wireless expansionists euphoric and the rest of us at risk. Dr. Robert Buckers Remarks and Shortcomings of the NIH Rat study Although the new NIH study presented by Dr. Bucker represents a major achievement in US EMF research initiatives, I am concerned about several remarks in Mr. Bucker's presentations, and his potential lack of knowledge on past human RF/MW studies. From my reading there is a plethora of human lab studies. 8 I am generally surprised a man of his background and significance to the study would be so elusive and incurious. Whether scientists debate quality of the studies or whether better selection of bio-markers are needed is another issue.

The fact is the human studies are there, and should be entered into the public debate on wireless safety. Perhaps most troubling is Mr. Bucker's discussion on the New NIH rat study now underway. I appreciate this research is one of many going on in the country, however it represents a major expenditure in taxpayer dollars to potentially not have realistic, real life comparisons. My understanding is that the signals in the Rat chambers will mimic cell phone signals of old, 900 Mhz and 1900 Mhz. Very few of our cell phones operate 900 Mhz. And 1900 Mhz is being phased out for the new 3 G phones which will allow for greater band width to accommodate a plethora of cell phone add-ons: internet, texting etc.

The new phones receiving & emitting a complex of frequencies on one device will create further complexities for signal replication in biological lab-studies unless the actual device is used. Add this complexity to the mix of many other wireless signals coursing through our bodies 24/7 which are not represented in the research and we are left with non- realistic experimental exposure conditions. Mr. Bucker's assistant discussed the similar NIH Rat study at the concurrent Cell phone conference. It became clear the exposure chambers as presently constructed cannot be easily modified to allow for varying new signal exposures without substantially higher costs.

Over and over again we see lab research worldwide never adapting fast enough to adequately replicate the signals the public is unwittingly exposed to. Hence industry can proudly dodge the issue of biological effects by proclaiming a new signal coming to market will be different or safer; be it digital vs analogue, higher vs lower frequency, or lower power, arguments continuously int
ended to detract the uninformed user from the findings connecting RF/microwave radiation to health effects. Secondly, I question using only SARs (Specific Absorption Rates) as the sole assessment measure of RF/MW exposures in NIH study.

SARs offer a confused comparison to people's direct RF/microwave exposure experiences.To correct this situation we need to include assessment measures using field strength readings, such as power density or ambient voltage and Gauss readings. A Need for Biophysics Researchers/Scientists/Medical Professionals An issue that cries out for attention is appropriating more research dollars to educate more scientists and medical professionals to understand the atomic properties and workings of our body.

European countries, especially Russia have long established schools/departments in Biophysics. Separating living creatures from man's manipulation of his planet's electromagnetic energies is pure folly. We evolved under the strength of nature's electromagnetic energies and are protected by the ionosphere from the universe's more potent radiation. Medical schools and biological sciences have little or no interest or instruction on human response to the physical phenomena of the universe, hence no underlying appreciation that manipulations of our planet's natural energies could influence our everyday bodily processes.

Emphasis has always been on the body's chemical, mechanical and now genetic reactions, with pharmaceutical and bio-tech companies capitalizing nicely on this situation. This situation is compounded when self proclaimed EMF sensitive people see doctor, and point to a correlation between certain EMF exposures and their symptoms. The unfamiliarity of the medical community with the electromagnetic health effects, makes our situation doubly frustrating. Their answer is to sedate us, when all we are looking for are ways to negate the affects and reduce our exposure.

Conclusions; We have raised ambient power levels of RF/microwave frequencies to over 1010 power compared to background levels we evolved in over millenniums of years. It seems incredible that modern science and medical community can deny man's connection to the frequency bands of our planet. We see in the visible light frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. We hear in another set of frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. Our brains think and sleep utilizing another band of the EM spectrum. Our hearts beat at certain frequencies.

Many animals use entirely different bands of the spectrum to see, hear and even feel. Can we believe that our bodies' might not sense man's manipulation in the radio and microwave band, when historic natural RF/MW signals were extremely weak compared to today's man made signals. 10, 11 As a society we consider it important to ensure various technological devices do not have signal interference with each other, but we will totally deny the possibility that living organisms which are intricately more frequency complex could possibly sustain the same int interference problems.

If medical technology has so aptly harnessed the power of EMF - RF/microwaves to cure disease (Search: Pubmed.com search engine) one has to ask how is it possible we are not impacting life with the indiscriminate and unrestrained broadcasting of man made RF/microwave energies. To say there are inconsistencies in the health research literature as a reason for dismissal of the evidence is beyond logic.

Never has a science accumulated such a body of biological and health effects without some plausible action by governments to implement strong safety measures. 12The ongoing conflicts should not be cause for dismissal of disagreeable research or for government inaction, but rather it should highlight the power of vested interests, love affair with this technology, and the biological complexity of this science - all inferring we enact a more precautionary approach to wireless expansion. Recommendations and Interests This brings me to my final conclusion.

There are many of us who because of different physical reasons and our personal research have chosen not to partake in this wireless revolution. Despite the fact I own no wireless devices, I must accept second hand exposures from all others who choose to use them, and from governments who choose to approve their expansion. In other words I have been left with no choice, but to live with the discomforts and health impacts the State imposes upon us.

Through the years I have bought expensive meters to assess and control my RF exposure, only to find those meters become increasingly obsolete as the wireless frequencies deployed by the new technologies reach higher and higher levels. Many of us are finding it increasingly difficult to find a place in this country where we can live with the sense of well being and calm we once experienced before the byproducts of wireless age became so invasive.

Considering the many unanswered question inherent in the safety of this science, and major conflicts of interest that increasingly permeate the research agenda, I ask this subcommittee to consider reevaluating wireless expansion policies and regulations

I ask your subcommittee to please consider the following: . Consider initiating a whole new approval process for the introduction of Wireless devices before going to market. The approval process should consider the interference of new RF/microwave devices with body frequencies not only with other electronic devices. The ALARA principle should be considered for non-ionizing products as well as ionizing products .

Give preference in the new Recovery Stimulus Act appropriation for fiber optics, cable technologies or other wired technologies in Broadband expansion. Any new wired technology should be ascertained to not emit unintentional high frequency radiation in the ambient atmosphere.

Reassess the new Recovery Stimulus Act appropriation for Smart Grid technology. The portion of the Smart Grid technology that will employ wireless components should be discouraged in favor of wired components with assurance that those components do not emit stray voltages that
would increase new forms of ambient electromagnetic radiation. .

Hold hearings to repeal the Telecoms Act of 1996, section 704, which prohibits consideration of environmental and health effects of wireless technologies in municipal proceedings. European countries, especially France, have been more successful in bringing up the health issues in the public arena, hence their awareness has initiated greater impetus for Precautionary warnings. .

Designate 4 or 5 Wireless Free Zones in this country where minimum ambient EMF thresholds could be established and maintained. These areas could also serve as future controls sites for RF/MW studies. Establishing criteria and locations for these places should include the representation of specific interest groups & trained engineers in RF metering devices. .

Minimize Conflicts of Interest in Research Peer Review Panels. Panel selection should be publicly aired, and selection should include varied backgrounds and interests. . Empower local or state bodies to set up their own RF/MW and other EMF frequency Monitoring/Enforcement offices across each state with responsibility and resources to measure ambient exposure levels.

A fee on wireless carriers should be imposed for operating and setting up these offices.

The measurement devices should be of uniform standard for calibration and accuracy. . Allocate research/education appropriations in the training &establishment of bio-physics disciplines at university and colleges.

As much as we are manipulating the physical properties of our universe, we need to ensure that biological sciences stay attuned to our altered EMF ambient environment and its potential effect on biological health. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bonjour, Aujourd'hui le sénat français vient d'adopter un projet de loi interdisant l'utilisation du téléphone cellulaire dans les maternelles, écoles primaire et secondaire. En plus, ils veulent inter
dire la publicité pour les enfants de moins de 14 ans. Le tout au nom du Principe de Précaution. Voir la nouvelle diffusée sur France 2 aux nouvelles de 20h et dans l'article suivant: http://www.come4news.com/le-senat-preconise-linterdiction-du-telephone-portable-dans-les-ecoles-333002 Dossier à suivre... François Therrien Porte-parole du SEMO ftherrien@aei.ca http://www.dangersemo.com/