Resonance - Beings of Frequency

Electromagnetic Fields And How They Affect Our Health

I recently watched a documentary called ‘Resonance,’ this is the inspiration for this article. This documentary was a well-researched informational documentary about how having cell phone towers and radio frequencies are actually affecting our health on a greater level than you might imagine. I recommend you check out this documentary, there will be a link provided at the end of this article.

What are EMF’s?

Electromagnetic Fields or EMF’s are the radio waves that are emitted appliances and wireless devices such as cell phones and computers.  Household appliances are considered to be part of the lower frequency range and cell phones, cell phone towers and wireless devices are a part of the high frequency range. We cannot see or feel these frequencies, so I think this is why this matter is greatly overlooked.

 So, what is the problem with EMF’s?

This is where it gets tricky, cell phones have only been around for the past 20 years or so and have only become THIS popular within the last 10 years; with now more than 5 billion cell phone users across the globe. There are many studies that show that cell phone use can in fact, cause cancer. There have been studies that show that this is more predominant in children, with excessive EMF exposure causing Leukemia, among other things. However this is proving to be a difficult thing to PROVE because most cancer causing agents take at least 10 or more years to develop.

In ‘Resonance,’ it is pointed out that the way the pineal gland reacts to EMF frequencies is the same way it reacts to microwave and light frequencies. This is an issue because when we sleep, our eyes send a signal to our pineal gland when it is dark, to start producing melatonin. However, if you are next to your cell phone when you are sleeping, your eyes may be interpreting the high frequencies as light frequencies so your brain will not receive this message and therefore no melatonin will be produced. Melatonin is extremely important to your health because along with a sleep-aid it is also a powerful free radical fighting anti-oxidant. So, if the EMFs are causing free radicals to form in your body, and then they are stopping your body from being able to combat them, you have a problem.

Another key point that the documentary ‘Resonance’ pointed out is that it is difficult to test the health of a person exposed to EMF’s vs. the health of the person who isn’t because virtually all humans are now exposed to these frequencies. This movie also interviews some people who have gotten cancer most likely from living in a subdivision that was built around a cell phone tower.

The disappearance of Honeybees is no secret either; it would only make sense that the increase of cell phone usage is a contributing factor to this ‘phenomena.’ This is not a matter to be ignored as the majority of our food production depends on the pollination of Honeybees.

 What can we do?

There are a few options. To point out the obvious, you could stop using a cell-phone, but I know in this day and age that is nearly impossible. You can limit your cell phone usage and try not to keep it on you when it is not in use and be sure to keep it out of your room while you sleep. Text when you can and if you can’t use the speaker phone option. Also, headset devices are a great choice. It is also very important to make sure that you don’t move to an area that is remotely close to a cell phone tower. Because Cell phone towers are virtually everywhere, it is tough to avoid them, but it would be best to not live directly beside one or under power lines. There are a few different products you can try as well that are designed to reduce the harmful affects of EMFs. I posted the following on the CE Facebook page a little while ago, and it didn’t get a very good response. I don’t understand why, yes, sure it seems to easy maybe, but it’s free! What do you have to lose? It’s better than nothing… I actually had kinesiology done to me with my cell phone with and without the ‘Freeshield,’ and this proved that this technology does in fact work. So try it! It’s worth a shot.

 http://www.freeshield.com/
There are also some devices that you can purchase, on this site they claim to work by enhancing a persons connection to the Earths Electro-Magnetic Field.

http://www.earthcalm.com/

http://www.blushield.info/

I think that it is very important to raise awareness on the topic of EMFs and at least open peoples eyes to what they are and what damage they can cause. I encourage everyone to do his or her own research on the matter, and look into this. You may be surprised with what you find!
And the link for ‘Resonance.’ Enjoy!



Article from:
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/01/06/electromagnetic-fields-and-how-they-affect-our-health/

Smart Meters

Use the letter below to forbid smart meter installation (or modify the letter to demand the meter be removed).

From:
Energy Customer's Name
Street Address
City State Zip

To:
Energy Provider
Street Address
City State Zip


Date of letter

NOTICE OF NO CONSENT TO TRESPASS AND SURVEILLANCE, NOTICE OF LIABILITY

Dear (Energy Provider) and all agents, officers, employees, contractors and interested parties,

If you intend to install a "Smart Meter" or any activity monitoring device at the above address, you and all other parties are hereby denied consent for installation and use of all such devices on the above property. Installation and use of any activity monitoring device is hereby refused and prohibited. Informed consent is legally required for installation of any surveillance device and any device that will collect and transmit private and personal data to undisclosed and unauthorized parties for undisclosed and unauthorized purposes. Authorization for sharing of personal and private information may only be given by the originator and subject of that information. That authorization is hereby denied and refused with regard to the above property and all its occupants. "Smart Meters" and digital meters violate the law and cause endangerment to residents by the following factors:
1. They individually identify electrical devices inside the home and record when they are operated causing invasion of privacy.
2. They monitor household activity and occupancy in violation of rights and domestic security.
3. They transmit wireless signals which may be intercepted by unauthorized and unknown parties. Those signals can be used to monitor behavior and occupancy and they can be used by criminals to aid criminal activity against the occupants.
4. Data about occupant's daily habits and activities are collected, recorded and stored in permanent databases which are accessed by parties not authorized or invited to know and share that private data by those who's activities were recorded.
5. Those with access to the smart meter databases can review a permanent history of household activities complete with calendar and time-of-day metrics to gain a highly invasive and detailed view of the lives of the occupants.
6. Those databases may be shared with, or fall into the hands of criminals, blackmailers, corrupt law enforcement, private hackers of wireless transmissions, power company employees, and other unidentified parties who may act against the interests of the occupants under metered surveillance.
7. "Smart Meters" are, by definition, surveillance devices which violate Federal and State wiretapping laws by recording and storing databases of private and personal activities and behaviors without the consent or knowledge of those people who are monitored.
8. It is possible for example, with analysis of certain "Smart Meter" data, for unauthorized and distant parties to determine medical conditions, sexual activities, physical locations of persons within the home, vacancy patterns and personal information and habits of the occupants.
9. Your company has not adequately disclosed the particular recording and transmission capabilities of the smart meter, or the extent of the data that will be recorded, stored and shared, or the purposes to which the data will and will not be put.
10. Electromagnetic and Radio Frequency energy contamination from smart meters exceeds allowable safe and healthful limits for domestic environments as determined by the EPA and other scientific programs.

I forbid, refuse and deny consent of any installation and use of any monitoring, eavesdropping, and surveillance devices on my property, my place of residence and my place of occupancy. That applies to and includes "Smart Meters" and activity monitoring devices of any and all kinds. Any attempt to install any such device directed at me, other occupants, my property or residence will constitute trespass, stalking, wiretapping and unlawful surveillance and endangerment of health and safety, all prohibited and punishable by law through criminal and civil complaints. All persons, government agencies and private organizations responsible for installing or operating monitoring devices directed at or recording my activities, which I have not specifically authorized in writing, will be fully liable for a fee of $100,000.00 for any violations, intrusions, harm or negative consequences caused or made possible by those devices whether those negative consequences are provided by "law" or not.

This is legal notice. After this delivery the liabilities listed above may not be denied or avoided by parties named and implied in this notice. Civil Servant immunities and protections do not apply to the installation of smart meters due to the criminal violations they represent.

Notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal. All rights reserved.

Signature

Rense & Dr Bill Deagle - Death By Smart Meter

TSA Pats Down Cancer-Stricken 95-Year-Old Woman, Removes Adult Diaper (VIDEO)

TSA security officers at Florida's Destin-Fort Walton Beach Airport patted down a cancer-stricken, 95-year-old woman and forcibly removed her adult diaper during the search, CNN reports. Could this end up being yet another TSA PR nightmare?

To read further please click here:
http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/06/26/tsa-pats-down-elderly-woman-removes-adult-diaper-video/ 

You Can Protect Yourself from EMF

On May 24th, at 7 PM,

  Vreeland College of 

the Healing Arts 
is beginning a series of special events: 
Wellness Dialogues 
Talks of Health & Wellness  

Admission is Free!
 
Please join us for our first 
Health & Wellness Talk:
     YOU CAN PROTECT YOURSELF!
Magnetic Field Therapy
   

Presented by 

Alex Marmolejo,

President of Quantum Wave International, Inc. 
Along with:
Dr. Richard Wright and Dr. Dagmar Neubauer
 
If you "live on your cellphone", or know someone who does, you won't want to miss this!
 
DID YOU KNOW?

· Using Cell Phones under the age of 20 increases tumors on auditory nerves by 500%.

· Using a cell phone within 5 ft. of children and toddlers exposes them to dangerous radiation effects.

· Cell phone use can cause emotional and learning problems by exposure to EMF's, (Electro Magnetic Fields) and cell towers.

· Cell phone stored or carried next to any body part, can damage cell DNA, risking cell breakdown and cancer.

Please join us for this important important discussion.

Event time and Location:
7 PM, May 24, 2011
The Vreeland College of the Healing Arts
473 Post Street 
(corner of Willis in the Camarillo Airport and Business Park) Camarillo, CA  93010
Phone - 805-482-8111
  

You Can Protect Yourself from EMF

DID YOU KNOW?

· Using Cell Phones under the age of 20 increases tumors on auditory nerves by 500%

· Using a cell phone within 5 ft. of children and toddlers exposes them to dangerous radiation effects

· Cell phone use can cause emotional and learning problems by exposure to EMF’s, (Electro Magnetic Fields) and cell towers

· Cell phone stored or carried next to any body part, can damage cell DNA, risking cell breakdown and cancer

YOU CAN PROTECT YOURSELF!

Alex Marmolejo, President

of Quantum Wave International, Inc.

will be speaking

Wednesday, April 27, 2011,  7:00 PM

at the

Alphabiotic Life Enhancement Center

1407 W. 8th Street

San Pedro, CA 90732

(310) 519-7700 or (310) 832-4088

www.alphabiotics.me

Learn how to protect you and your family from

 daily exposure of electro-magnetic pollution.

Learn how it effects your health and well-being.

Cell Phones and Brain Cancer?

You can find more information on how to protect yourself from EMF exposure at:

www.quantumnanotec.com 

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