The Truth About TSA Airport Scanning

Here's an article we found in Popular Mechanics. Gives us a little feedback on how these machines work.
The Truth About TSA Airport Scanning

Airport Full Body Scanners - UCSF Professors give Red Alert

Professors at University of California, San Francisco, are concerned about the potential serious health risks of X-ray airport security scanners. Please read their letter of concern:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3685/cancer-ray-opt-out.pdf

Serious Public Health Concerns Raised Over Exposure to Electromagnetic

Dr. George Carlo was the scientist funded with $25 million by the cell phone industry to research cell phone radiation and to prove through scientific studies that the phones are safe.

After six years of study Dr. Carlo determined that cell phone radiation disrupted heart pacemakers, damaged the blood-brain barrier, penetrates the skulls of children and does genetic damage that can result in cancer.

Dr. Carlo presented these findings to the cell phone industry and when he refused to recant the findings his research funds were cut-off and a publicity campaign to discredit him was put in effect.

Dr. Carlo is extremely concerned about public health and has gone public with his information in the book:
Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards of the Wireless Age


Serious Public Health Concerns Raised Over Exposure to Electromagnetic

Fields (EMF) from Power Lines and Cell Phones

University of Albany, New York– August 31/2007

An international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative Working Group) has released its report on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and health. It raises serious concern about the safety of existing public limits that regulate how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life.

Electromagnetic radiation from such sources as electric power lines, interior wiring and grounding of buildings and appliances are linked to increased risks for childhood leukemia and may set the stage for adult cancers later in life. A report from the BioInitiative Working Group (www.bioinitiative.org) released on Friday, August 31st documents the scientific evidence that power line EMF exposure is responsible for hundreds of new cases of childhood leukemia every year in the United States and around the world.

The report provides detailed scientific information on health impacts when people are exposed to electromagnetic radiation hundreds or even thousands of times below limits currently established by the Federal Communications Commission (US FCC) and International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection in Europe (ICNIRP). The authors reviewed more than 2000 scientific studies and reviews, and concluded that the existing public safety limits are inadequate to protect public health. From a public health policy standpoint, new public safety limits, and limits on further deployment of risky technologies are warranted based on the total weigh of evidence.

The report documents scientific evidence raising worries about childhood leukemia (from power lines and other electrical exposures), brain tumors and acoustic neuromas (from cell and cordless phones) and Alzheimer’s disease. There is evidence that EMF is a risk factor for both childhood and adult cancers.

Public health expert and co-editor of the Report Dr. David Carpenter, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany, New York says “this report stands as a wake-up call that long-term exposure to some kinds of EMF may cause serious health effects. Good public health planning is needed now to prevent cancers and neurological diseases linked to exposure to power lines and other sources of EMF. We need to educate people and our decisionmakers that “business as usual” is unacceptable.”

Health questions about power line EMFs were initially raised by Nancy Wertheimer, a Colorado public health expert and Ed Leeper, an electrical engineer in 1979. Wertheimer noticed that children were twice or three times as likely to have leukemia tended to live in homes in the Denver, CO area close to power lines and transformers. Now, there are dozens of studies confirming the link, but public health response has been slow in coming, and new standards to protect the public are necessary.

Brain tumor specialist Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD and Professor at University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden is a member of the BioInitiative Working Group. His work on cell phones, cordless phones and brain tumors is widely recognized to be pivotal in the debate about the safety of wireless radiofrequency and microwave radiation. “The evidence for risks from prolonged cell phone and cordless phone use is quite strong when you look at people who have used these devices for 10 years or longer, and when they are used mainly on one side of the head.

Brain tumors normally take a long time to develop, on the order of 15 to 20 years. Use of a cell or cordless phone is linked to brain tumors and acoustic neuromas (tumor of the auditory nerve in the brain) and are showing up after only 10 years (a shorter time period than for most other known carcinogens). “This indicates we need research on more long-term users to understand the full risks” says Dr. Hardell.

Dr. Hardell’s work has been confirmed in other studies on long-term users. A summary estimate of all studies on brain tumors shows overall a 20% increased risk of brain tumor (malignant glioma) with ten years of use. But the risk increases to 200% (a doubling of risk) for tumors on the same side of the brainas mainly used during cell phone calls. “Recent studies that do not report increased risk of brain tumors and acoustic neuromas have not looked at heavy users, use over ten years or longer, and do not look at the part of the brain which would reasonably have exposure to produce a tumor.”

Wireless technologies that rely on microwave radiation to send emails and voice communication are thousands of times stronger than levels reported to cause some health impacts. Prolonged exposure to radiofrequency and microwave radiation from cell phones, cordless phones, cell towers, WI-FI and other wireless technologies have linked to physical symptoms including headache, fatigue, sleeplessness, dizziness, changes in brainwave activity, and impairment of concentration and memory. Scientists report that these effects can occur with even very small levels of exposure, if it occurs on a daily basis. Children in particular are vulnerable to harm from environmental exposures of all kinds.

Co-editor of the report, Cindy Sage of Sage Associates says “public health and EMF policy experts have now given their opinion of the weight of evidence. The existing FCC and international limits for public and occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation are not protective of public health. New biologically-based public and occupational exposure are recommended to address bioeffects and potential adverse health effects of chronic exposure. These effects are now widely reported to occur at exposure levels significantly below most current national and international limits.”

Biologically-based exposure standards are needed to prevent disruption of normal body processes. Effects are reported for DNA damage (genotoxicity that is directly linked to integrity of the human genome), cellular communication, cellular metabolism and repair, cancer surveillance within the body; and forprotection against cancer and neurological diseases. Also reported are neurological effects including changes in brainwave activity during cell phone calls, impairment of memory, attention and cognitive function; sleep disorders, cardiac effects; and changes in immune function (allergic and inflammatory responses).

Sage says “the Working Group recommends a biologically-based exposure limit that is protective against extremely-low frequency (power line) and radiofrequency fields which, with chronic exposure, can reasonably be presumed to result in significant impacts to health and well-being”.

Contributing author Dr. Martin Blank, Columbia University professor and researcher in bioelectromagnetics says “cells in the body react to EMFs as potentially harmful, just like to other environmental toxins, including heavy metals and toxic chemicals. The DNA in living cells recognizes electromagnetic fields at very low levels of exposure; and produces a biochemical stress response. The scientific evidence tells us that our safety standards are inadequate, and that we must protect ourselves from exposure to EMF due to powerlines, cell phones and the like.” He wrote the section on stress proteins for the BioInitiative Report.

http://www.electropollution.org/studies.html

Cell Phones are Dangerous, But This May Be Far Worse...

Posted by: Dr. Mercola | February 09 2010

An increasingly alarmed army of international scientists have reached a controversial conclusion:

The "electrosmog" that first began developing with the rollout of the electrical grid a century ago and now envelops every inhabitant of Earth is responsible for many of the diseases that impair or kill them.
During the past 100 years, we have methodically filled in the electromagnetic spectrum far beyond what occurs in nature.

Recently, several developments have highlighted the growing hazards of EMF pollution and the crucial need to address them.

In 2007, the Bioinitiative Working Group released a 650-page report citing more than 2,000 studies (many very recent) that detail the toxic effects of EMFs from all sources. Chronic exposure to even low-level radiation (like that from cell phones), can cause a variety of cancers, impair immunity, and contribute to Alzheimer's disease and dementia, heart disease, and many other ailments.
Additionally, every single study of brain tumors that looks at 10 or more years of use shows an increased risk of brain cancer.

A recent study from Sweden is particularly frightening, suggesting that if you started using a cell phone as a teen, you have a 5 times greater risk of brain cancer than those who started as an adult.
A recent study showed that exposure to very-low-frequency voltage signals (1-100kHz), or "dirty electricity,” can greatly increase your risk of melanoma, thyroid cancer, and uterine cancer. These signals are largely by-products of electronics, such as modern energy-efficient appliances, televisions, stereos and other entertainment devices.

These electronic devices use a lower voltage than other appliances, and this manipulation of current creates a complex electromagnetic field. This field not only radiates into the immediate environment but also can travel along home or office wiring throughout the neighborhood.

"For the first time in our evolutionary history, we have generated an entire secondary, virtual, densely complex environment — an electromagnetic soup — that essentially overlaps the human nervous system," says Michael Persinger, PhD, a neuroscientist at Laurentian University who has studied the effects of EMFs on cancer cells.

And it appears that, more than a century after Thomas Edison switched on his first light bulb, the health consequences of that continual overlap are just now beginning to be documented.

Sources:
  MSNBC January 18, 2010

Dr. Mercola's comments:

New scientific evidence is continually emerging that nearly all the twentieth century human plagues can be tied to some aspect of our use of electricity, including:

• Acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children
• Brain tumors
• Malignant melanoma
• Asthma
• Cardiovascular disease
• Immune system dysfunction
• Hormone disturbance
• Brittle diabetes
• Sleep disorders, headaches, Alzheimer’s disease and ADHD

And this is just a partial list.

EMFs and Your DNA

Cells in your body can react to EMFs as a harmful invader, just like they do to other environmental toxins.
Remember that you are an electrical being.
Your body is a complex communication device where cells “talk”, tissues “talk,” organs “talk,” and organisms “talk[1].” At each of these levels, the communication includes finely tuned bio-electrical transmitters and receivers, which are tuned like tuning into a radio station. What happens when you expose a radio antenna to a significant amount of external noise? You get static from the noise – and that is what is happening to your body in today’s electrosmog environment.
Two of the more well-known biologicals impacts from electrosmog are the interruption of the brain wave pattern[2] leading to behavior issues[3] and the interference to your body’s entire communication system (cytoskeleton)[4] leading to abnormal neurological function, such as dementia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and fibromyalgia.
At a cellular level, your cell membrane receptors (the brain of the cell) recognize electromagnetic fields at very low levels of exposure producing a stress response similar to that produced by exposure to heavy metals or toxic chemicals.[5]
This can cause the cell membrane to go from an “active” or permeable state where it allows nutrients in and toxins out, to an “inactive” state where the cell membrane is impermeable. During a normal day, your cells will change states thousands of time, but when under constant environmental stress, the membranes can be locked in the inactive state. This is often referred to as “oxidative stress” as nutrients are able to enter into the cell, while toxins (free radicals) are not allowed to leave.
There is also real evidence that this inactive state can even have geno-toxic effects, meaning electrosmog is toxic by both damaging DNA and preventing your body from repairing DNA, which can be the first step to cancer.
We are not really sure what the “trigger” is that causes health problems, but we know that the electrosmog is definitely a contributing factor. For health, your body must be able to communicate within itself, that is, to be in harmony with the natural rhythm of the earth and all life.
The chaotic and unpredictable patterns from electrosmog can create noise in your body and force your body out of harmony. These damaging biological effects have been found at levels far below the so-called industrial and governmental safety limits—1,000,000 times lower than those limits, in some cases.
Why do things such as MTT, acupuncture, TENS units, pacemakers, and many other bioelectrical treatments work? Most likely a major reason why they work is because they focus on getting your body back into its natural rhythm or resonance. Just as you breathe in oxygen from an atmosphere you can’t see, your cells are suspended in a sea of vibrational energy that you can’t see or feel—that is, until it makes you sick.
As the MSNBC article states:

“Remember, these positive-negative shifts are occurring many thousands of times per second, so the electrons in your body are oscillating to that tune. Your body becomes charged up because you're basically coupled to the transient's electric field."
Keep in mind that all the cells in your body, whether islets in the pancreas awaiting a signal to manufacture insulin or white blood cells speeding to the site of an injury, use electricity—or "electron change”— to communicate with each other.
By overlapping the body's signaling mechanisms, could transients [electrosmog] interfere with the secretion of insulin, drown out the call-and-response of the immune system, and cause other physical havoc?”

Yes, absolutely.
And the really frightening aspect about electrosmog is how little control you have over it.

How You Can Protect Yourself

Fortunately, you are not completely helpless. There are strategies that can help reduce your exposure and protect you from the constant onslaught of radiation.
For over 20 years, Building Biologists (www.buildingbiology.net) have been studying and educating the general public regarding the negative impact of electromagnetic fields (EMF). On their website are multiple videos and information on the why, what and how for dealing with EMFs.
First and foremost, you’ll want to reduce your exposure to as many sources as you can.
For my latest list of safety tips and guidelines on how to reduce your exposure, please see my previous article.
In addition to these recommendations, Camilla Rees mentions a few more in her video, including:

1. Intestinal care: Make sure you’re getting plenty of healthy probiotics. The Paracelsus Clinic in Switzerland discovered that symptoms of electrosensitivity can be reduced by providing gut barrier support. For more information, listen to the interview with Dr. Rau, medical director of the Paracelsus Clinic, available at this link.
2. Regular detoxification programs: Not only are you dealing with increasing amounts of toxic chemicals in your environment, your body is full of microorganisms that respond to EMFs by generating increased levels of their own toxins, according to a course for physicians on this subject, taught by Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, MD.
3. Beware of mold: Mold, just like other microorganisms, can also react in high EMF environments. One study showed 600 times more neurotoxins generated from mold in a high EMF environment. According to Rees, there are also mold legal cases being reviewed, questioning whether problems in buildings infested with mold may have actually been related to nearby antenna infrastructure.

Controlling the environment in which you sleep is especially important, given you spend a third of your life there. Review how to create a sleep sanctuary in five easy steps.

More Electrical Pollution Solutions

Electrical Pollution Solution has an extensive list of steps you can take to combat electrosmog in your home and work environments. Their suggestions include the following:

• Remove your microwave oven. Besides dangerous EMF radiation, microwave ovens have other negatives impacts on your health. 
• Avoid using electric blankets and electric heating pads.
• Use rubber gloves when washing dishes or working at the sink, and stand on a non-conductive mat. Both increase the resistance of the path through your body.

For additional EMF information, please see EMF.mercola.com for the latest news and updates.

Be a Live Wire for Change

The last thing that you can do, and perhaps the most important, is to help spread awareness about this ever-increasing problem.
If you believe that one or more transmitting products is making you ill, please report it/them to the following agencies (be prepared with the manufacturer, model and/or serial number, and a list of your symptoms):

1. FDA 1-800-FDA-1088 The same FDA program that regulates medical devices also regulates consumer products that emit radiation.
2. Consumer Product Safety Commission 1-800-638-2772
3. EMR Policy Institute

It’s unfortunate, but the government is not likely to step up and do the right thing to protect your health without a lot of pressure from the public.
Power companies have successfully beaten back attempts to modify exposure standards. The cell phone industry, which has funded at least 87% of the research on the subject, has effectively resisted regulation.
Please get involved at any level you can, to help increase the pressure on industry and industry regulators, which is the only way to create a safer future for everyone.

---

[1] Oschman, James L. Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis. Churchill Livingstone, 2006. P. 189.
[2] Oschman, James L. Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis. Churchill Livingstone, 2006. P. 96
[3] Becker, Robert. MD. Cross Current. Penguin Group. 1990. P. 215.
[4] Oschman, James L. Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis. Churchill Livingstone, 2006. P. 131.
[5] Lipton, Bruce, PhD. "The Biology of Belief." Mountain of Love/Elite Books, Santa Rosa, CA. 2005. P. 83

"Disconnect": Why cellphones may be killing us

 

A new book probes the connection between mobile devices and a host of health problems -- with frightening results

By Thomas Rogers

Strange how hard it is to remember a time before cellphones. Mobile phones have changed the way we spend our leisure time, the way we work and how we consume everything from groceries to news stories. Some countries even set up centers to treat those "addicted" to iPhones or BlackBerrys. But, as a new book shows, cellphones may actually be doing damage to far more than our attention spans -- and could, in fact, be killing us. In "Disconnect," Devra Davis, a scientist and National Book Award finalist for "When Smoke Ran Like Water," looks at the connection between cellphones and health problems, with some disturbing results. Recent studies have tied cellphone use to rises in brain damage, cheek cancer and malfunctioning sperm. She reveals the unsettling fact that many new cellphones now come with the small-print warning that they are to be kept at least one-inch from the ear (presumably for safety reasons) and many insurance companies refuse to insure cellphone companies against health-related claims. Most troubling of all, science has shown that children and teenagers are particularly susceptible to cellphone radiation, raising questions about its effects on coming generations.
Salon spoke to Davis, via land line, about the real dangers of cellphone use, the industry's coverup and what we can do to protect ourselves and our children.

What to you is the most compelling evidence that links cellphones to brain cancer?
The brain cancer connection is in fact a very complicated one. Cancer can take a long time to develop. After the Hiroshima bomb fell, there was no increase in brain cancer for 10 years, even 20 years afterward. Forty years later, there was a significant increase in brain cancer in people who survived the bombing. Now, for studies of people who have been heavy cellphone users (defined as someone who has made a half-hour call a day for 10 years), there is a 50 percent increase in brain cancer overall. And among the heaviest users there's a two- to fourfold increased risk.

And what is the compelling evidence to suggest that cellphones might be tied to sterility in men?
In 2008, researchers found that men with the lowest sperm counts were significantly more likely to keep their phones on their bodies all the time. And it's been found that the sperm exposed to the highest level of radiation from the phone were the most deformed and the worst swimmers. An Australian team led by a fellow named John Aitkin believes that cellphone radiation weakens the ability of the sperm cell to swim because it's affecting mitochondrial DNA (mitochondria are basically the engines of the cell). Very similar work was done at one of the top research institutions in Turkey, and in Poland, Hungary and India.

We've only really been using cellphones for 10 years. Isn't it a bit early to be drawing these kinds of conclusions?
Well, that's actually not true. Heavy use of cellphones in the United States is a very recent phenomenon for the general population. In the year 2000, fewer than half of us regularly used cellphones. Now almost all of us do. If there's a 10-year latency, we still have to wait another five years in the United States to see any general population impacts.
You have to look at all of the evidence and not simply wait for proof of human harm or sick people or dead people. If the debate becomes, "Do we have sufficient proof of human harm?" that means we're waiting another 20 years. That means we will potentially have an epidemic before we act to prevent harm. Now, some people could be very cynical and say, look, brain cancer is relatively rare so even if it doubles or quadruples it's still rare. But it's also, at this point, mostly incurable.

Why are young people so much more at risk?
Their brains are not fully protected with myelin. Myelin is a kind of fatty sheath that goes around neurons [brain cells] and helps to enhance judgment and a whole bunch of other things, like impulse control. Their skulls are also thinner, and a thinner skull admits more radiation. We now know that the young brain doesn't mature until the mid-20s, later in boys than girls. We need to be much more vigilant about protecting the young brain because it is more vulnerable. We know that from work that's been done on lead and a number of other agents.

If this research is really as convincing as it seems to be, then why hasn't it created a widespread uproar?
Well, it has in France. Bills passed both houses of the French national government this spring that ban the marketing and creation of phones uniquely for children. It's also had an impact in Israel, a country that is very sophisticated in its use of radar and microwaves, and Finland, both of which have issued warnings.
But think about the fine print warning that comes with BlackBerry Torch. It says, If you keep the phone in your pocket, it can exceed the FCC exposure guidelines. What's that supposed to tell you? It sounds like that phone cannot safely be put in your pocket -- well, where do they expect people to keep them?

A lot of people are going to have a lot of problems downgrading their cellphone use. In my case, my cellphone is my only phone. If I turn it off, I'm literally unreachable and, given that I work in the media, that's kind of a tough situation. I think that's going to be an obstacle for a lot of people.
I'm a big user myself, but what I do is I text, and use speakerphone or an earpiece. I don't keep the phone on my body or in my pocket. The phone companies are warning people about this now for a reason. I recently spoke to someone at Bell Canada who was just given his new phone and was asked to sign a statement that he had read the manual. He said: "Why am I supposed to sign this statement? So when and if I develop cancer years later I can't sue them?" The manual tells him "hold the phone .9 inches from the body," which nobody does.

Do smart phones, like iPhones and BlackBerrys, emit more radiation than regular phones? Are they more dangerous?
It's not the amount of radiation, necessarily. It's the pulsed nature of the signal. It's like: You can snap a rubber band, and it's fine; but if you keep snapping it over and over again, it will break. Smart phones are constantly looking for signals, and it's that sudden stopping and starting that I'm concerned about, not the total amount. There are also a number of appalling apps for smart phones that have arisen for children, that I'm really concerned about. One of them allows you to download white noise so you can then put the phone under the baby's pillow and get the child to go to sleep. There are also children's books that you can download to your phone, and then have the kid sit and play with them.
But it depends on how you use your smart phones. If you keep them on and on your body you are violating the manufacturer's recommendations and violating the exposure guidelines.

Is there any prospect of phones becoming safer from a manufacturing standpoint?
I know that phones can be designed more safely because I know there are patents on safer designs, some of which are held by friends of mine, some held by the phone companies themselves. There are technological improvements in the wings, and that's going to make the epidemiology close to impossible. Because, remember, in the beginning they said, well, yes, unfiltered cigarettes are a problem; if we put filters on they're going to be safe.

The book also describes the aggressive push-back by people affiliated with the cellphone industry against scientists whose findings point to safety concerns -- including, in one case, a campaign to discredit someone's findings by accusing them of manufacturing evidence. It's pretty explosive stuff.
I think it might have started out as nothing more than companies wanting to make profits, and wanting to keep their products in a positive light. Companies are allowed to make profits; I'm not opposed to that. And I imagine people genuinely thought these kinds of dangers from radiation weren't possible, because the physics paradigm [at the time] said it wasn't. But it has since been morphed into something worse. Now even the insurance industry is listening to scientists. Many companies are no longer providing coverage for health damage from cellphones.
We need to be more sophisticated as a society in using experimental data where we have it. We have experimental data on sperm counts. We have experimental data on brain cell damage. We have experimental data on biological markers that we know increase the risk of cancer. These are the same debates that went out over passive smoking, over active smoking, over asbestos, over benzene, over vinyl chloride. They said we don't have enough sick or dead people. The consequence was to continue exposing people. Is there anybody in the world who believes we should have waited as long as we did?

Thomas Rogers is Salon's Deputy Arts Editor. More Thomas Rogers

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/10/10/disconnect_cell_phone_interview/index.html

 

United front helped villagers fight off plan to build 49ft phone mast

 

Kev Stopper, third right, and other Waddington residents, who objected to a proposed phoned mast in their village.

CONTROVERSIAL plans for a 49ft mobile phone mast near a village nursery and houses have been rejected.

Scores of Brant Road residents, in Waddington, signed petitions and sent a deluge of comments to North Kesteven District Council after learning of the proposal for the village.
As reported in the Echo, applicant Telefonica O2 UK limited was hopeful of having the mast near the Brant Road Social Club.
But residents told the Echo last week they received very little information just days before the public consultation closed, with only ten letters sent out notifying people. The application was submitted in September.

Parents had also threatened to take their children out of the nearby Rainbow Day Nursery.
But North Kesteven District Council confirmed the mast plan was rejected as it would have been "detrimental" to the appearance of the area.
Brant Road resident Kev Stopper, who lives next door to the planned site, said he was delighted by the strong response from the community against the phone mast.
The 53-year-old tiler said: "The application was so hush-hush. I think the council got a shock when it saw all the petitions and comments – and this was all within 38 hours.
"That shows the solidarity of the people and the feelings against the plan.
"I would like to thank the Echo for the coverage. It has worked and the outcome was successful for us."
North Kesteven District Council development control manager Andrew McDonough said consideration needed to be given to the positioning and appearance of the structure.
He said: "Following careful consideration of the proposal, the district council concluded prior approval was required for the mast.
"It refused to grant approval on the basis the operator had failed to robustly explore all opportunities for mast sharing and that the citing and appearance was considered to be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area."
During the consultation, Brant Road resident Terry Searby told North Kesteven District Council he wanted to protest against the application.
He said: "There is never an issue with signals in this area, so why is there a need for another mast?"
Valley Road resident Stephen Willans said: "I am against the planning of a phone mast as I live very close to this site with two young children."
Telefonica O2 UK limited was yesterday unavailable for comment.

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/news/Villagers-celebrate-proposals-build-49ft-phone-mast-relegated/article-2790711-detail/article.html