Dr. Hildy®: OneCellOneLight™Radio | Blog Talk Radio – Wednesday, Novemer 20, 2013 – 1:00-3:00PM Pacific (2-4pm Mountain; 3-5pm Central, 4-6pm Eastern)
Over the last half-century, technological advancements have grown exponentially. In the early 1960’s, broadcast television was still new to many people and there was no such thing as a personal computer. Since that time, our desire for technology has grown, and with it, the means of transmitting the data used by these devices. From radios and televisions to cellular phones and wifi-enabled devices, all are using an invisible wave of some kind. But could all of this electronic activity be harmful to us?
This week on One Cell One Light Radio, Dr. Hildy welcomes Curtis Bennett, aka The Thermoguy, to discuss these potential maladies and other things being emitted from one source or another that could be hazardous to our health, environment and structures. A world-renowned engineer, scientist and environmentalist, Curtis has dedicated his life to studying the invisible by using thermography to see images beyond our spectrum. He is an expert on the dangers of EMF, Cell Phones, WIFI, Smart Meters…AND much MORE
Excerpt from: Children Face the Highest Health Risk From Cell Phones
August 14, 2014 in -Mailing List, Cell phone news by EMFacts
From Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Raising “Appropriate Concerns”
The review authors “continue to raise appropriate concerns related to the ever-increasing role of technologies that emit nonionizing radiation, including cell phones and certain toys,” said L. Dade Lunsford, MD, Lars Leksell Professor of Neurological Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, who was not involved in the study.
“They indicate that certain types of tumors, at least as reported, may have increased in incidence, including the most malignant brain tumors and perhaps hearing nerve tumors,” he told Medscape Medical News. However, he pointed out that there are issues with some of the data, and that many of the reports are anecdotal.
“Among the concerns with such public health data are the inability to determine if there is one or many environmental factors — cell phones are not the only concerns — that are related, or whether the perceived increase is simply better recognition at earlier stages based on the availability of MRI, as well as better reporting,” Dr. Lunsford explained.
“Perhaps it is enough to simply raise the alarm in the hope of liberating either government or industry-sponsored appropriately designed investigational research,” he noted.
“Regardless, it seems unlikely that the use of cell phones will diminish; cell phones have saved more lives than will ever be lost,” Dr. Lunsford said. However, “concerns related to the greatly expanded use of digital toys in childhood clearly warrant better science and, for the time being, appropriate vigilance.”
Major breakthrough in cellphone industry product liability lawsuit in USA
August 14, 2014 in -Mailing List, Cell phone news by EMFacts
From Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.:
Joel’s comments: This superior court ruling enables the discovery phase of the trial to begin. Perhaps, we will soon learn whether the wireless industry has been covering up knowledge of the health risks of mobile phone use.
The insurance industry has refused to provide product liability insurance on cell phones primarily due to this concern as they fear that cell phone litigation may turn out like tobacco or asbestos litigation did with huge punitive awards.
My most recent press release, “FCC: 98 Scientific Experts Demand Stronger Regulation of Cellphone Radiation” makes the case that the scientific community has known for many years about the health risks of mobile phone radiation. The wireless industry, however, has confused government officials and the public by co-opting scientists to support the industry’s disinformation campaign to buy time.
Court Allows Expert Testimony in Litigation Alleging Cell Phone-Linked Tumors According to Consumers’ Legal Team
WASHINGTON Aug. 8 2014
WASHINGTON Aug. 8 2014 /PRNewswire/ — A Washington D.C. superior court ruled that five scientific expert witnesses can testify for consumers suffering from brain tumors allegedly caused or promoted by cell phone use Ashcraft & Gerel LLP Morganroth and Morganroth PLLC Lundy Lundy Soileau & South L.L.P. and co-counsel said today.
Judge Frederick H. Weisberg who is presiding over 13 consolidated lawsuits against the telecom industry ruled that experts met the Dyas/Frye legal standards and can offer testimony related to injury causation and health effects. The court held evidentiary hearings in December 2013 and January 2014 and reviewed hundreds of exhibits.
Judge Weisberg noted that while the court did not decide the issue of whether cell phones cause brain tumors new scientific studies and information have emerged recently. His order referred to a May 2014 French case-control epidemiological study that found support for “a possible association between heavy mobile phone use” and brain tumors.
Each of the plaintiffs in the litigation suffers from a brain tumor or is suing for a family of someone who died of brain cancer.
The plaintiffs are represented by Morganroth and Morganroth PLLC of Birmingham Mich.; Ashcraft & Gerel LLP of Washington D.C. and Lundy Lundy Soileau & South LLP of Lake Charles La.; The Knoll Law Firm LLC of Marksville La.; Pribanic & Pribanic LLC of Pittsburgh; Frasier Frasier & Hickman LLP of Tulsa Okla.; and Bernstein Liebhard LLP of New York.
Hunter Lundy of Lundy Lundy Soileau & South LLP said “The telecom industry argued for years that cell phone consumer litigants could not produce scientists who could relate exposure to cell phone radiation to tumors. The ruling today refutes that contention and our experts’ opinions having met the Dyas/Frye test are admissible.”
Jeffrey B. Morganroth of Morganroth and Morganroth PLLC said “We now have opinions and testimony from prominent scientific experts that will be admissible and support our clients’ claims that cell phone radiation can cause brain tumors in humans. With this landmark ruling the cases are moving forward to fact discovery.”
Michelle Parfitt and James F. Green of Ashcraft & Gerel LLP said “The evidence presented at the evidentiary hearings months ago only included publicly available materials and did not include any testing data or information in possession of the defendants. We will seek that information as soon as possible.”
The first of the consolidated cases is “Michael Patrick Murray et al. v. Motorola Inc. et al.” Case No. 2001 CA 008479 B in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. The defendants in the cases are Motorola Inc. Qualcomm Inc. Nokia Inc. Audiovox Communications Corp. and Samsung Telecomm American LLC.
CBC: Smart meter overbilling complaints investigated by Hydro-Québec
August 23, 2014 in -Mailing List, Smart Meters and smart appliances by EMFacts
From Take Back Your Power
Hydro-Québec is looking into complaints that its new smart meters are overbilling homeowners, following a CBC investigation.
The provincially owned power utility is in the process of installing close to 4 million next-generation meters across Quebec — a switch the utility had claimed would save it, and by proxy its customers, millions of dollars.
Marc Magendie lives in a two-storey home in Laval. He says he’s extremely careful with his electricity consumption, so he was shocked when his hydro bills doubled after a new smart meter was installed. Magendie got his first surprise in January — when he received a bill for more than $1,000. He normally pays between $450 and $500 for that same time period.
smart-meter-customer-overbilling-hydro-quebec Marc Magendie says he doesn’t know how he’ll afford his increasing hydro bills. “I’m running a very tight budget and that increase is breaking me.” (CBC) Marc Magendie says he doesn’t know how he’ll afford his increasing hydro bills. “I’m running a very tight budget and that increase is breaking me.” (CBC) Magendie responded by reducing his electricity consumption even further. “I’ve got a programmable thermostat … I don’t use my dishwasher, I only do laundry once a week when they’re full, I use a drying line.” But he says it hasn’t made a difference. Magendie’s bills have already cost him nearly $3,000 for this year. Normally, he says he pays an average of about $2,000 per year for electricity.
This occasional column explores topics covered in Science Times 25 years ago to see what has changed — and what has not.
Everywhere in the modern world, the throb of alternating current generates electromagnetic waves — from the television, the blender, the light bulbs, the wires in the wall.
Because the oscillations are very slow (just 60 hertz, or cycles per second), this type of radiation is called “extremely low-frequency.” It was long thought harmless because it is too weak to knock out electrons and directly damage molecules in the body.
An epidemiological study comparing children in Denver who died of cancer from 1950 to 1973 with a control group of other children found that those who lived near electrical distribution lines were twice as likely to develop the disease as those who did not. A subsequent study, by other scientists who sought to eliminate what were seen as flaws in the first study, had nearly identical conclusions.
Laboratory experiments provided more reasons for concern. Electromagnetic radiation, particularly the magnetic part of it, changed some functioning in cells and altered the action of neurotransmitters. Pulses of 60-hertz radiation increased the number of abnormal embryos in chicken eggs.
The article quoted Dr. David O. Carpenter, then the dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of New York at Albany: “The whole thing is very worrisome. We see the tips of the iceberg, but we have no idea how big the iceberg is. It ought to concern us all.”
25 YEARS LATER Dr. Carpenter is still at the same university, as the director of the Institute for Health and the Environment. He still finds 60-hertz radiation worrisome.
“Almost nothing has changed in 25 years in terms of the controversy, although the evidence for biological effects of electromagnetic fields continues to grow stronger,” he wrote via email last week.
In reviewing the research, the World Health Organization has categorized extremely low-frequency waves as “possibly carcinogenic”: There appears to be an increase in leukemia rates with long-term exposure to magnetic fields stronger than 0.4 microtesla. The earth’s magnetic field is about 100 times stronger, but it is not oscillating, a crucial distinction. (Concerns about other childhood cancers have largely abated.)
One reason for the continuing uncertainty is that scientists have yet to explain how such waves could lead to cancer. Leukemia is a relatively rare disease, striking fewer than one in 5,000 children in the United States; its causes are hard to study, and even if a link were established, any effort to shield the world from low-frequency radiation would at best prevent a small number of cancers.
“In terms of a public health perspective and in terms of what one would think of suggesting in terms of regulations, you can see that the risk-benefit ratio would be quite unbalanced,” Dr. van Deventer said. “And this is if we were able to show causality.”
In recent years, concerns have migrated to frequencies that oscillate not 60 times a second but millions to billions of times — those used by cellphones, cordless phones and wireless networks. Dr. Carpenter, for example, would like to keep Wi-Fi out of schools, even though there is no direct evidence of harm as of yet and it broadcasts at lower energy levels than cellphones; the W.H.O. calls the radio frequencies used by cellphones, Wi-Fi and other telecommunication devices also “possibly carcinogenic.”
“Which is a little bit difficult to explain to the public,” Dr. van Deventer said. “People like to have a black-and-white answer.
“Looking at trends over the last 20, 30 years, we don’t see an increase” in cancer, she said. “But again, we don’t know. If it takes cancer 10 years to promote, maybe we will see it in the next 10 years.”
The possible hazards have not deterred her from a modern lifestyle. “Yes, I am calling you, talking to you using my cellphone,” she said. “I have a microwave. I have everything. It doesn’t change anything for me.”
She added, ”But from a professional point of view, it’s important that we stay on top of it.”
The W.H.O. project is working on a new report summarizing the health risks of radio-frequency fields, to be published next year.