Portland Neighbors Fight Uphill Battle Against Cell Towers

By Anna Griffin, The Oregonian 

Portland’s next great neighborhood war has barely begun and already been lost.

You wouldn’t know the cause is hopeless from the signs dotting the leafy Northeast neighborhoods of Beaumont-Wilshire and Irvington, the ones defiantly asking, “Where are you when we need you, Amanda Fritz?” and insisting, “No Cell Towers in Residential Areas!”

But facts are facts. There are about 800 wireless antennas within city limits. Experts expect that to double in the next few years, with many going in residential neighborhoods.

Today, Sunnyside and Mount Tabor. Tomorrow, your neck of the woods. And there’s not much you can do.

“The bottom line is that these things make bad neighbors. They’re ugly. They’re noisy. Who knows what they do to your health?” said Colin O’Neill, an organizer of the anti-cell-tower group RespectPDX and a homeowner near a new antenna wireless provider Clearwire is installing in Beaumont-Wilshire.

Portlanders can expect to see signs like this pop up in more neighborhoods.

 

Nobody wants an antenna in their backyard. Everyone wants their cell phone and laptop to work everywhere. Wireless service has evolved from luxury to necessity: More than 60 percent of Portland 9-1-1 calls now come from cell phones. That fact — and, oh, yes, the telecommunications industry’s ability to spend tens of millions of dollars each year lobbying Congress — have prompted the federal government to repeatedly restrict city, county and state leaders’ ability to control where the towers and antennas can go.

Federal regulations bar local governments from blocking antennas over health concerns. Cities can use land-use laws to steer towers into commercial and industrial areas but have scant say over them in the public right-of-way — say, on utility poles outside your house.

A few years ago, Portland leaders decided that they’d rather have more, smaller antennas than a few giant old-fashioned cellular towers. So city regulations encourage smaller antennas above busy streets on existing structures such as church steeples and water towers.

The problem: There aren’t many of those in residential neighborhoods, where more and more of us rely on wireless.

For providers, utility poles are the easiest way to expand. That turns scary when you consider how many poles there are in Portland — 170,000 at last count — how close many sit to porch swings, dinner tables and baby cribs and how little we really know about the long-term health impact of all these wireless devices.

“I don’t want my family to be the test case,” said Steven Cole, who lives across the street from the proposed Irvington antenna. “Nobody does.”

We don’t have a choice. Under city policy, companies must warn neighbors that a new antenna is coming, must meet with them and let them vent. Venting, however, isn’t close to vetoing. By the time providers file the proper paperwork, they’ve spent months figuring out precisely where they need a new antenna. They’re not likely and certainly not required to change because a few homeowners grumble.

Last year City Council members asked Congress to kill the federal rule saying cities can’t use health concerns to block new towers. Earlier this year, they voted to join Arlington, Texas’, petition challenging the Federal Communication Commission’s authority. Those are largely symbolic gestures, not the full-fledged, full-throated legal challenge antenna opponents want.

“Basically, if the carrier says, ‘We want to be here,’ that’s what happens,” O’Neill said. “How is that possible? How can our elected officials possibly think that’s acceptable?”

City regulators say a lawsuit would be a waste of taxpayer money. City commissioners have opted for a more deliberative approach, using contracts with cell phone and wireless carriers who want to do business in Portland to impose some common sense restrictions on, for example, how tall antennas can be. The deals are up for renewal in two years. (Don’t think about how many more antennas are coming between now and then. You’ll just upset yourself.)

“Portland has done everything it can to make this as reasonable as possible under the limitations imposed by the federal government,” said David Soloos, the city’s antenna expert. “We are not allowed to regulate the wireless industry.”

Sadly, he’s probably right. At every step, providers have been ahead of federal regulators. The battle ended before it even started.

Welcome to the future. The cell phone reception is crystal clear, and you can check your email anywhere. Just watch out for the heartburn.

- Anna Griffin

  

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/anna_griffin/index.ssf/2010/06/portland_neighbors_fight_uphil.html

Fairfax Neighborhoods Battle New Cell Towers

By Fredrick Kunkle

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 8, 2010; 11:11 PM 

A group of Fairfax County neighborhoods is battling plans to install mobile telephone antennas in a conflict that a county supervisor says appears to be occurring more often as telecom carriers push further into residential areas to satisfy the demand for smartphone service. 

On the eve of a county Planning Commission meeting Thursday, residents stepped up efforts to oppose two of the five antennas planned in the Providence district near Vienna. 

Elizabeth Slucher, 50, chair of the Lakevale Estates Community Association, said opponents of a 57-foot-tall antenna on Vale Road fear the new tower will mar the aesthetics in a neighborhood that was developed as part of an equestrian community in 1968. Its utilities have been buried underground. She said some opponents also worry that the cluster of mobile phone antennas poses a health threat because of the radio waves they emit. 

John Janka, 48, a telecom lawyer, has organized a Web page, an online petition and a 29-page document explaining opposition to a 58-foot tower that he said is virtually in his front yard on Oak Valley Drive. 

To read further click here: 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR2010120807731.html

The Naked Truth About Scanners

By Roger Simon
December 28, 2010 04:34 AM EST  

 

On the day after Christmas, readers of The Washington Post were given a real treat: pictures of naked men.

The men in the pictures were fully clothed, but they were naked nonetheless, because the pictures came from airport full-body scanners.

The machines provided graphic pictures of the male anatomy. True, they were no more graphic than Michelangelo’s David or Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man (that’s the naked guy with his arms and legs stuck out), but both of those were depictions, not actual people trying to heft their wheelie bags on the conveyor belt, take off their shoes and jackets, remove their laptops, take out their baggies full of fluids no more than 3 ounces in size, take the metal out of their pockets and somehow get through security before their planes take off.

According to the Post, by New Year’s Day, there will be 500 such machines in use nationwide and 1,000 by the end of 2011, or roughly one machine for every two security lanes in every airport in the land.

If the machines offend your sense of modesty or decency for yourself or your children, then you can request a pat-down where your naughty bits may be touched by a Transportation Security Administration screener rather than projected on a video screen.

Officials say 98 percent of people go through the machines rather than request a pat-down, which is not surprising: First, who likes to be touched by a stranger? And second, going through the machines is faster, and flying has becomes such a cumbersome and aggravating experience that most people will do anything to get it over with.

(There is a company called Flying Pasties, which claims to have a product that you slip inside your clothing to screen your private parts. “It’s simply not against the law to keep your private parts private,” the company says.)

Some parties are suing the government over the new machines, claiming an unreasonable invasion of privacy, while others claim the machines expose people to too much radiation, which the government denies.

Most people, however, accept it as just another agony associated with flying (along with fees to check baggage and crowded luggage bins).

And, after all, the machines are worth it because they detect explosives.

Except they don’t. As it turns out, the machines don’t detect explosives at all. They detect images on your body that shouldn’t belong on your body.

“It’s not an explosive detector; it’s an anomaly detector,” Clark Ervin, who runs the Homeland Security Program at the Aspen Institute, told the Post. “Someone has to notice that there’s something out of order.”

Which means those security employees who stare at the screens have to be sharp enough and well-trained enough to detect things that are abnormal. (And some experts think that if the explosives are flat and pancake-shaped and taped to your stomach, they could not be detected anyway, because the picture would look too normal.)

The machines cost $130,000 to $170,000 each, and by 2014, the federal government will have spent $234 million to $300 million for them.

Which would be a bargain if they actually did something besides embarrass people. In May, a TSA screener at Miami International Airport who went through a full-body screening as part of his training was arrested for beating a co-worker with a police baton after co-workers made fun of the size of his private parts.

The solution for passengers? Get used to it.

Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, was interviewed Sunday by CNN’s Candy Crowley, and Napolitano said nothing was going to change “for the foreseeable future.”

“You know, we’re always looking to improve systems and so forth,” Napolitano said. “But the new technology, the pat-downs, is just objectively safer for our traveling public.”

But Crowley decided to screen and pat down that assertion.

Citing an ABC report, Crowley said, “There are some major airports who had a 70 percent failure rate at detecting guns, knives, bombs, that they got through in your tests…. So how good can it be when you have major airports with a 70 percent fail rate?”

Napolitano dismissed those results as old and questionable and said, “Let’s set those aside.” One of the real successes of the machines and procedures, Napolitano said, is that they discourage terrorists from even trying to get on planes.

In other words, the machines keep us safe even if they don’t work at all.

“What we know is that you can’t measure [how] the devices … are deterring [terrorists] from going on a plane,” Napolitano said.

“Just people who just are discouraged, thinking they’d be found out,” said Crowley.

“Exactly,” said Napolitano.

In which case, we do not need machines that cost upward of $130,000 each.

All we need are archways made out of $30 or $40 worth of sheet metal that are labeled: “Official Destructo Machine — If You Are a Terrorist, This Machine Will Not Only Zap You, but Put a Picture of Your Private Parts on YouTube.” 

That ought to do it.

dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=29DB2746-0853-0908-7FA154E7FA4AED7B 

 

WiFi in Schools Proven Dangerous

"Cross Currents" by Dr. Robert O. Becker

Dr. Becker tells of the emergence of electromagnetic medicine, which promises to unlock the secrets of healing, and the growth of electromagnetic pollution, which poses a clear environmental danger. He explains the effectiveness of alternative healing methods that use parts of the body's innate electrical healing systems, and warns that our bodies are being adversely affected by power lines, computers, microwaves and satellite dishes. 

To order click on image. Thank you!

"Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age" by Dr. George Carlo

George Carlo and Martin Schram are aiming to become information-age Ralph Naders. They ask a question that ought to concern America's 103 million mobile phone users, as well as those who merely come within earshot of these popular devices: Is the wireless future a threat to public health? "Visit any public building, college classroom, courthouse, or commuter train, and look around: You'll see people using not just wireless phones but also wireless laptop computers and miniature palm tops," write Carlo and Schram. "What you won't see are the microwaves that are criss-crossing a confined space where a number of people who are not even using these instruments are bombarded by these waves." It sounds creepy. And Carlo, an epidemiologist who once oversaw a multimillion-dollar research project on health for the cellular industry, believes the news is not good: there may be a link between cell phone use and brain tumors. The research is not conclusive, but Carlo and Schram think it's disturbing enough to warrant government action. Needless to say, the industry that once backed Carlo's work now considers him persona non grata. 

Due largely to Carlo's coauthorship, Cell Phones is unavoidably a one-sided story. Key business figures didn't agree to interviews. In fact, this might have been a better book if it were written by Schram, with Carlo as one of several major characters rather than a collaborator. Then again, it would lack the passionate advocacy that will draw many readers to it. And even the most skeptical may want to take a few of the simple safety precautions the authors recommend in a concluding chapter, such as wearing a headset or earpiece when using a cell phone, in order to keep a distance from the radiation-emitting antennae. One look at the x-ray photos reproduced in the book, which show how radiation easily penetrates skulls, will give even the most impervious observer second thoughts. One thing is probably certain: This book is a harbinger of litigation. If Carlo and Schram are correct about their concerns, the cellular industry--as unbelievable as it sounds--may go the way of Big Tobacco. --John J. Miller

To order click on image. Thank you!

TSA Agents Complain Over Body Scanner Radiation Exposure

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Monday, Dec 7th, 2010

TSA workers are complaining about the amounts of radiation they are being exposed to on a daily basis in the wake of the mass introduction of body scanners to airports around the country.

USA Today reports that TSA agents are unhappy with the fact that they are being kept in the dark by their employers, despite repeated requests for information.
“We don’t think the agency is sharing enough information,” said Milly Rodriguez, occupational health and safety specialist at the American Federation of Government Employees, the union that represents TSA workers.

“Radiation just invokes a lot of fear.” she added.
According to the USA Today report, several TSA employees have expressed their concerns to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

…a TSA employee at an unidentified airport asked CDC in June to examine concerns about radiation exposures from standing near the new full-body X-ray scanners for hours a day. The CDC said it didn’t have authority to do a hazard assessment unless three or more current employees at one location made a joint request, according to a September letter from the CDC to the unnamed worker. The CDC provided the letter to USA TODAY.

Despite claiming that the body scanners and baggage scanners emit safe doses of radiation and are routinely inspected, the TSA has refused to release its radiation inspection records.

Worse still, an independent study by the CDC carried out in 2004, found that some baggage scanners were in violation of federal radiation standards, and were emitting two or three times beyond the agreed safe limit.
A further 2008 CDC report noted that some x-ray machines were missing protective lead curtains or had had safety features disabled by TSA employees with duct tape, paper towels and other materials.
Now there are even more x-ray devices in use, TSA workers’ concerns, as well as recent public backlash, is beginning to force the issue.

This has prompted members of congress to get involved, with a group led by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass, demanding that the TSA release the documents.
As the USA Today report explains, The TSA is responsible for inspecting the x-ray scanners itself, rather than the FDA, because they are not classed as medical devices.
Following the congressional attention, the TSA has said that it will attempt to release the radiation records to USA Today, but has not indicated when this will be, citing the need to review the records for security reasons.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the top Republican on a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee over federal workforce issues, has vowed to press the TSA for the documentation.
“It should send some flashing red lights when they won’t allow the public to review that data,” said Chaffetz, who oversaw the passage in the House last year of an amendment to ban “strip-search” imaging at airports.

“You don’t have to look at my wife and 8-year-old daughter naked to secure an airplane,” Chaffetz said at the time.

“You can actually see the sweat on somebody’s back. You can tell the difference between a dime and a nickel. If they can do that, they can see things that quite frankly I don’t think they should be looking at in order to secure a plane,” Chaffetz told the House.

Frankly, more TSA workers should be concerned over the levels of radiation they are being exposed to and are being asked to expose the public to.

Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at the Johns Hopkins school of medicine recently told AFP that “statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays”.

“…we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner,” he added.

John Sedat, a University of California at San Francisco professor of biochemistry and biophysics and member of the National Academy of Sciences tells CNet that the machines have “mutagenic effects” and will increase the risk of cancer. Sedat previously sent a letter to the White House science Czar John P. Holdren, identifying the specific risk the machines pose to children and the elderly.

The letter stated:
“it appears that real independent safety data do not exist… There has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.”

The TSA has repeatedly stated that going through the machines is equal to the radiation encountered during just two minutes of a flight. However, this does not take into account that the scanning machines specifically target only the skin and the muscle tissue immediately beneath.

The scanners are similar to C-Scans and fire ionizing radiation at those inside which penetrates a few centimeters into the flesh and reflects off the skin to form a naked body image.
The firing of ionizing radiation at the body effectively “unzips” DNA, according to scientific research by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The research shows that even very low doses of X-ray can delay or prevent cellular repair of damaged DNA, yet pregnant women and children will be subjected to the process as new guidelines including scanners are adopted.

The Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety concluded in their report on the matter that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed.

Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”
“The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” reported Bloomberg.

Scientists at Columbia University also entered the debate recently, warning that the dose emitted by the naked x-ray devices could be up to 20 times higher than originally estimated, likely contributing to an increase in a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma which affects the head and neck.
“If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant,” said Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University’s centre for radiological research.

Despite all these warnings, The Department of Homeland Security claims that the scanners are completely safe, pointing to “independent” verification from the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, both federal government bodies.
——————————————————————
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor at Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and regular contributor to Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-agents-complain-over-body-scanner-radiation-exposure.html

Radiation scientists agree TSA naked body scanners could cause breast cancer and sperm mutations

Radiation scientists agree TSA naked body scanners could cause breast cancer and sperm mutations

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The news about the potential health dangers of the TSA's naked body scanners just keeps getting worse. An increasing number of doctors and scientists are going public with their warnings about the health implications of subjecting yourself to naked body scanners. These include Dr Russell Blaylock (see below) as well as several professors from the University of California who are experts in X-ray imaging.

At the same time, some internet bloggers are insisting that the TSA's naked body scanners pose no health risks because air travelers are subjected to higher levels of radiation by simply enduring high-altitude flights where cosmic radiation isn't filtered out by the full thickness of the Earth's atmosphere. This comparison, however, is inaccurate: The TSA's body scanners focus radiation on the skin and organs near the skin whereas cosmic radiation during high-altitude flights is distributed across the entire mass of your body.

Comparing the total radiation exposure across your entire body to machine-emitted radiation exposure that focuses its ionizing radiation primarily on your skin is like comparing apples and oranges. You'll see this explained further, below, in the words of these scientists.

As Dr Russell Blaylock (www.BlaylockReport.com) recently reported:

The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administration's new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and enhanced pat-downs brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. So, what is all the concern really about - will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama's science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.

The letter Dr Blaylock is referring to is from the Faculty of the University of California, San Francisco and is signed by Doctors John Sedat Ph.D., David Agard, Ph.D., Marc Shuman, M.D., Robert Stroud, Ph.D.

You can download or view the full letter from NaturalNews here (PDF):
http://www.NaturalNews.com/files/TS...

Even though it was written in April of this year, this letter has received increased publicity lately due to the TSA's sudden expansion of naked body scanners in airports as well as the agency's arrogant insistence that such machines will soon be used at bus stations, railway stations and other entrance points for mass transportation.

In this NaturalNews article, I highlight the most important warnings from this letter and explain, in plain language, what these scientists are trying to say.

To read further please click here:

http://www.naturalnews.com/030607_naked_body_scanners_radiation.html

The Airport Security Solution They Don't Want You to Know About

Speaking about watchdogs ... these dogs are the solution to the airport groping fiasco.
Apparently this is the most censored news story in our country regarding the airport security.

Watch here at Brasschecktv:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/985.html

Court victory is a first for cell-phone programmers - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

Court victory is a first for cell-phone programmers - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

International Association of Fire Fighters Oppose The Use of Fire Stations as Cell Phone Tower Stations

We could only wish the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was as caring and concerned about the people as the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF).

When it comes to RF/MW radiation the IAFF has truly done their homework. In an effort to protect its members the IAFF has adopted Resolution No. 15 to oppose the use of fire stations as the base station for towers and antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions.

Any institution considering to install a cell phone tower or antenna should read this resolution before making a decision.

Visit the IAFF web site and read their extensive report:

http://www.iaff.org/hs/Facts/CellTowerFinal.asp

TSA gives pilots pass on invasive screening - Now faces flight attendants clamoring for same treatment

By Bob Unruh
World Net Daily

The federal Transportation Security Administration today took a baby step to quiet the national uproar over more-or-less nude images it was taking of airline passengers – or the alternative pat-downs that critics have described as "groping," according to a law firm that has sued over the issue.

Confirmation arrived from John Whitehead at The Rutherford Institute, which has a pending legal action on behalf of two career pilots. He said pilots now will be allowed to bypass the invasive screening.

"Although the TSA's concession may make it easier for pilots to travel, American passengers will still be subjected to these full-body scans and invasive pat downs in violation of the Fourth Amendment," Whitehead said.


"No American, pilot or passenger, should be forced to undergo a virtual strip search or subjected to such excessive groping of the body as a matter of course in reporting to work or boarding an airplane when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing. To do so violates human dignity and the U.S. Constitution, and goes against every good and decent principle this country was founded upon," he said.
Join more than 22,000 others in a petition demanding action against the intrusive airport screening procedures implemented by Janet Napolitano and send a letter to Congress, President Obama and others telling them exactly what you think about the issue.
 
WND reported earlier when the action was filed. It named Janet Napolitano and the Transportation Security Administration and alleged the invasive airport "security" procedures instituted at President Obama's instructions are "profane, degrading, intrusive and indecent" and are both "unreasonable and violative of the Fourth Amendment."

The case was filed in federal court for the District of Columbia and others on behalf of two veteran pilots, Michael S. Roberts and Ann Poe.

The issue of the invasion of privacy demanded by the TSA at airport security checkpoints – passengers are given the option of an X-ray that reveals a virtually nude image for government agents to see or a hands-on-all-body-parts pat-down – has exploded in recent days.


There are groups suggesting that people simply stop flying or, in a coordinated effort, demand the more time-consuming pat-downs on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, the busiest day of the year in many airports.

Whitehead noted that the TSA announcement came only days after his lawsuit and was from TSA administrator John Pistole, who said a process was being developed to allow pilots to pass through security by showing airline-issued identification and another form of ID.


However, the problem appeared to be far from resolved, as a North Carolina report described how a Charlotte flight attendant and cancer surviver was forced to take off a prosthetic breast during a pat-down.
The report from WBTV said Cathy Bossi, a flight attendant for 32 years, was ordered to a personal screening area during an August encounter, and she related what happened.

"She [a screener] put her full hand on my breast and said, 'What is this?'. And I said, 'It's my prosthesis because I've had breast cancer.' And she said, 'Well, you'll need to show me that'."
The report said Bossi later contacted a group connected to the flight attendants union to complain.
A report from Aviation Blog also reported today that attendants believe they should get the same access as pilots.

"Flight attendants have submitted to the same finger printing and 10-year FBI background check as pilots. Flight attendants have completed required FAA mandated initial training and annual recurrent training in safety and security. Flight attendants have voluntarily taken additional TSA crewmember self-defense training on our own time and at our own expense since the federal government refused to make that training mandatory and fund it. Flight attendants are FAA-certified safety and security professionals," the report said.
"In spite of the invaluable role that flight attendants play in air security, flight attendants are now being subjected to Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) or 'enhanced' body pat-downs that are not only invasive, but also humiliating and embarrassing for front line security professionals who put their lives on the line every day. Enhanced TSA screening of flight crews is not only unnecessary, it is a waste of TSA resources that should be directed at the real security risks."

Whitehead earlier reported that passengers – and flight attendants still at this point – can thank "President Obama for this frontal assault on our Fourth Amendment rights. Mind you, this is the same man who insisted that 'we will not succumb to a siege mentality that sacrifices the open society and liberties and values that we cherish as Americans.'"

He said the Fourth Amendment's provisions make clear the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"It's a huge civil liberties issue," he told WND. "In the United States, we've never before strip-searched – full-body strip searches – unless there's reasonable suspicion of some kind of criminal activity."
As WND previously has reported, a website called OptOutDay.com is suggesting all passengers send a message to Washington on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving by demanding the individual searches rather than the X-ray scans.

WND reported just a day earlier about resolutions introduced in New Jersey demanding Washington review the TSA procedures and make the needed changes.

Over recent days WND reported as dozens of other airline passengers shared their real-life horror stories of close encounters of the TSA kind, including a 70-year-old whose fudge "contraband" was discovered, a Los Angeles passenger who was "groped" four times and a man who was the target of a TSA screaming fit when he chose to opt-out of the "porno scan."

WND also reported on the growing movement by activists and citizens to push back against Napolitano's plans for "enhanced" screening at airport checkpoints.
A petition has been launched to tell President Obama, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and members of Congress all about the problem.

The petition targets the decision-makers in Washington who could bring the invasive procedures to a screeching halt.

"We, the undersigned, call for the immediate suspension of the enhanced security screening procedures and an apology to the American public by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for directing the implementation of this ill-advised program," says the petition.
 
Concerns over the invasion of privacy by TSA scanners, described as voyeurism by critics, along with the "molestation" of the associated "enhanced" pat-downs and the health concerns from the blasts of radiation have now reached a critical mass.

George Donnelly, who with James Babb has launched the "We Won't Fly" website delivering a message directly to airlines, told WND the customer revolt is taking off faster than he could imagine.
His website says, "We do not consent to strip searches, virtual or otherwise. We do not wish to be guinea pigs for new, and possibly dangerous, technology. We are not criminals. We are your customers. We will not beg the government anymore. We will simply stop flying until the porno-scanners are history."

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=230517

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