Epidemiologist Launches Crusade To Educate The Public On The Dangers Of Wireless Radiation | “The fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered the FCC to explain why it has ignored years of scientific research that demonstrates harm from radiation is a critical step in the right direction...”

1.2K

•

Epidemiologist Launches Crusade To Educate The Public On The Dangers Of Wireless Radiation | “The fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered the FCC to explain why it has ignored years of scientific research that demonstrates harm from radiation is a critical step in the right direction...” (www.zerohedge.com)

Recently, Davis and her organization, Environmental Health Trust (EHT), won a victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit with a favorable judgment. In its ruling, the court found the FCC ignored scientific evidence showing harm from wireless radiation and ordered the FCC to reexamine the science on long term exposure, environmental impacts and impacts to children.

The court held that the FCC failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to radiofrequency radiation at levels below the FCC’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.” The court also said that the agency demonstrated “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.” The court found the FCC ignored numerous organizations, scientists, medical doctors -including the American Academy of Pediatrics -who have repeatedly called on the FCC to update its 1996 human exposure wireless limits. Thousands of pages of evidence were included in the filings.

For more than a decade, Davis has published and reviewed respected research studies that confirm the dangers of wireless radiation. She has testified to Congress on the issue and long worked with physicians, scientists, other epidemiologists and toxicologists who concur that mobile devices, Wi-Fi, 5G and other radio-frequency systems pose a health risk to humans, animals and the environment.

Associating Cell Phone Radiation To Cancer Cell phones were not premarket safety tested before they came on the market in the 80s because they were assumed to be safe. However, in 2011 the World Health Organization concluded cell phone radiation was a “possible” carcinogen based on findings of brain cancer in studies of people who use cell phones heavily for many years.

Since that time, the evidence has significantly increased associating cell phone radiation to cancer and many experts conclude cell phone radiation is a human carcinogen. In addition, numerous well-documented scientific research studies have demonstrated that cell phone radiation can impact reproductive organs and the brain.

Hugh S. Taylor, M.D. is president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. He is professor and chair of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at Yale School of Medicine and chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Yale-New Haven Hospital. He has also been trying to educate the public on the dangers of wireless radiation. His research findings have been pivotal in demonstrating harm from wireless radiation exposure particularly prenatal exposure. “We need to act now,” said Taylor. “If I were someone who’s considering pregnancy, or someone who is pregnant or the mother of a young child, I think it’s just important to move that cell phone away from you and not be exposed to that radiation any more than possible.”

“The FCC must update it’s 25 year-old safety limits for wireless radiation from cell phones, cell towers and wireless devices. The fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered the FCC to explain why it has ignored years of scientific research that demonstrates harm from radiation is a critical step in the right direction,” said Davis who argues that the FCC’s outdated limits place Americans everywhere at risk, especially in the era of 5G.

“We submitted thousands of pages of peer-reviewed, published scientific data to the FCC over the last several years documenting the need for health agencies to create safety limits that protect against biological effects. Infrastructure policy should prioritize safe wired broadband rather than wireless networks in order to reduce public exposure,” Davis added. “Unfortunately, the telecom industry is now pushing millions of new 5G wireless antennas into neighborhoods and billions of new wireless devices putting more people in harm’s way every day.”

“The research demonstrates long term exposure can lead to serious health effects,” Davis explained. “Unfortunately, we don’t have the luxury of time to wait for the public to realize the dangers are real.”

Environmental Health Trust, a 501(c)3 nonprofit, is a think tank that promotes a healthier environment through research, education and policy.

For more information on the Environmental Health Trust, go to www.ehtrust.org.

Devra Davis Ph.D., MPH founder of the Environmental Health Trust, is an epidemiologist and toxicologist as well as an author on three books on environmental hazards. She served as Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Health in the Department of Health and Human Services, was founding director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and former professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health. As one of the lead authors on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, she was part of the team of scientists awarded the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore. Recently, Davis and her organization, Environmental Health Trust (EHT), won a victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit with a favorable judgment. In its ruling, the court found the FCC ignored scientific evidence showing harm from wireless radiation and ordered the FCC to reexamine the science on long term exposure, environmental impacts and impacts to children. The court held that the FCC failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to radiofrequency radiation at levels below the FCC’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.” The court also said that the agency demonstrated “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.” The court found the FCC ignored numerous organizations, scientists, medical doctors -including the American Academy of Pediatrics -who have repeatedly called on the FCC to update its 1996 human exposure wireless limits. Thousands of pages of evidence were included in the filings. For more than a decade, Davis has published and reviewed respected research studies that confirm the dangers of wireless radiation. She has testified to Congress on the issue and long worked with physicians, scientists, other epidemiologists and toxicologists who concur that mobile devices, Wi-Fi, 5G and other radio-frequency systems pose a health risk to humans, animals and the environment. Associating Cell Phone Radiation To Cancer Cell phones were not premarket safety tested before they came on the market in the 80s because they were assumed to be safe. However, in 2011 the World Health Organization concluded cell phone radiation was a “possible” carcinogen based on findings of brain cancer in studies of people who use cell phones heavily for many years. Since that time, the evidence has significantly increased associating cell phone radiation to cancer and many experts conclude cell phone radiation is a human carcinogen. In addition, numerous well-documented scientific research studies have demonstrated that cell phone radiation can impact reproductive organs and the brain. Hugh S. Taylor, M.D. is president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. He is professor and chair of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at Yale School of Medicine and chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Yale-New Haven Hospital. He has also been trying to educate the public on the dangers of wireless radiation. His research findings have been pivotal in demonstrating harm from wireless radiation exposure particularly prenatal exposure. “We need to act now,” said Taylor. “If I were someone who’s considering pregnancy, or someone who is pregnant or the mother of a young child, I think it’s just important to move that cell phone away from you and not be exposed to that radiation any more than possible.” “The FCC must update it’s 25 year-old safety limits for wireless radiation from cell phones, cell towers and wireless devices. The fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered the FCC to explain why it has ignored years of scientific research that demonstrates harm from radiation is a critical step in the right direction,” said Davis who argues that the FCC’s outdated limits place Americans everywhere at risk, especially in the era of 5G. “We submitted thousands of pages of peer-reviewed, published scientific data to the FCC over the last several years documenting the need for health agencies to create safety limits that protect against biological effects. Infrastructure policy should prioritize safe wired broadband rather than wireless networks in order to reduce public exposure,” Davis added. “Unfortunately, the telecom industry is now pushing millions of new 5G wireless antennas into neighborhoods and billions of new wireless devices putting more people in harm’s way every day.” “The research demonstrates long term exposure can lead to serious health effects,” Davis explained. “Unfortunately, we don’t have the luxury of time to wait for the public to realize the dangers are real.” Environmental Health Trust, a 501(c)3 nonprofit, is a think tank that promotes a healthier environment through research, education and policy. For more information on the Environmental Health Trust, go to www.ehtrust.org.

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

No one's established that radio waves cause harm.

The university of Aachen in Germany maintains a database of all studies that show effects of electromagnetic fields on biology. At this moment the database contains 34,767 publications.

https://www.emf-portal.org/en

I'll bet you a dozen donuts that not a single person on Poal can explain at the cellular level how a radio wave causes the damage they claim it causes.

I have explained the basic physics here before. I will provide you a link to my comment at the end.

As for the cell, there exist models for why harm is possible, but no single model has been agreed upon yet. If it was, we would not have this discussion.

I will also give you another model, that does not even involve the cell, later here below.

But for the cell, on a general level, EMFs appear to cause oxidative stress, from which donwstream effects can then manifest. I'd like to point out, that oxidative stress can lead to DNA damage, and is the reason why the meme that only ionizing radiation is harmful is incorrect. You can get cancer from many different things, where there is no ionizing radiation involved.

However when it comes to EM effects and EM hypersensitivitiy, cancer is a red herring. Long before you get cancer, you will get ill health. Cancer is only one of many possible endpoints, and it is the one that is furthest away from when damage starts. Yes, we need to look at cancer too, but if cancer is the only endpoint, we are not taking into account all the effects.

Now I will give you another model, that does not involve the cell. This is only to show you, that thinking EM fields can only effects cells, is a far too simple model. To understand a bit more of the physics, you can read my comment that I reference at the end.

This model involves the blood, and the reason why the blood is affected, is because blood is a colloidal substance. In this colloidal substance, red blood cells are separated from each other, and separated from the walls of the blood vessels, by an electric charge. This charge is called the zeta-potential. This is not a well known effect to most people, but it is well established in science. The zeta-potential is a measure of the electrical charge in a colloid substance, that gives particles their separation. A term that is often used is dispersion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_potential

But not only does the zeta-potential keep blood platelets from sticking to each other, it also prevents them from sticking to the walls of the blood vessels.

Now, because of the physics of charge, and its interaction with EMF, it means electromagnetic fields can distrupt and collapse this electric charge, the zeta-potential, of a colloid substance. Example of such a measurement of zeta-potential collapse induced by EMF:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252694614_Effect_of_AC_Electromagnetic_Field_on_Zeta_Potential_of_Calcium_Carbonate

What has been found numerous times with electrohypersensitive people, is that their blood appears to be sticky. This can be seen is live blood analysis, as something called rouleaux formation. Rouleaux is the effect of palatlets forming together, like rolls of coins. Electrohypersentivie people appear to have low z-potential of their blood, and if separation is initially good, their z-potential can be seen collapsing quickly, when exposed to EM fields.

This is only results from private researchers so far. This effect is well established and known, among those that do live blood analysis of EHS people. I have suggested this topic for peer-reviewed research many times, but so far all I see is arguments on cancer, and whether there is a cellular mechanism, and what it could be. I propose this should be investigated much more thoroughtly, and it is a much easier effect to observe, than to try and figure out why the nanomachinery inside the cell is affected.

But the reason I told you this, is only to show, that from my experience most people simplify their ideas of the possible mechanisms. The human body is an ELECTRICAL molecular-chemical nanomechanical machine. To function, it employs all the branches of physics at once, and this is the reason, why you cannot just be an electrical engineer, or a biologist, and think you can figure it out. You have to be a physicist, chemist, biologist, and nanomolecular expert, all at the same time, in order to begin to comprehend what is actually going on.

I propose therefore, that EM interactions and biology, is one of the most complex topics of our time.

Now here below, is a comment I wrote some while ago, which talks a bit more about the physics. This is only to increase understanding. It is only through understanding, that we can work towards better science and better models. It starts with understanding, and then we work our way from there.

https://poal.co/s/Videos/434093/0afd8502-b2cb-4d81-b447-3dac3841bd54

> No one's established that radio waves cause harm. The university of Aachen in Germany maintains a database of all studies that show effects of electromagnetic fields on biology. At this moment the database contains 34,767 publications. https://www.emf-portal.org/en > I'll bet you a dozen donuts that not a single person on Poal can explain at the cellular level how a radio wave causes the damage they claim it causes. I have explained the basic physics here before. I will provide you a link to my comment at the end. As for the cell, there exist models for why harm is possible, but no single model has been agreed upon yet. If it was, we would not have this discussion. I will also give you another model, that does not even involve the cell, later here below. But for the cell, on a general level, EMFs appear to cause oxidative stress, from which donwstream effects can then manifest. I'd like to point out, that oxidative stress can lead to DNA damage, and is the reason why the meme that only ionizing radiation is harmful is incorrect. You can get cancer from many different things, where there is no ionizing radiation involved. However when it comes to EM effects and EM hypersensitivitiy, cancer is a red herring. Long before you get cancer, you will get ill health. Cancer is only one of many possible endpoints, and it is the one that is furthest away from when damage starts. Yes, we need to look at cancer too, but if cancer is the only endpoint, we are not taking into account all the effects. Now I will give you another model, that does not involve the cell. This is only to show you, that thinking EM fields can only effects cells, is a far too simple model. To understand a bit more of the physics, you can read my comment that I reference at the end. This model involves the blood, and the reason why the blood is affected, is because blood is a colloidal substance. In this colloidal substance, red blood cells are separated from each other, and separated from the walls of the blood vessels, by an electric charge. This charge is called the zeta-potential. This is not a well known effect to most people, but it is well established in science. The zeta-potential is a measure of the electrical charge in a colloid substance, that gives particles their separation. A term that is often used is dispersion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_potential But not only does the zeta-potential keep blood platelets from sticking to each other, it also prevents them from sticking to the walls of the blood vessels. Now, because of the physics of charge, and its interaction with EMF, it means electromagnetic fields can distrupt and collapse this electric charge, the zeta-potential, of a colloid substance. Example of such a measurement of zeta-potential collapse induced by EMF: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252694614_Effect_of_AC_Electromagnetic_Field_on_Zeta_Potential_of_Calcium_Carbonate What has been found numerous times with electrohypersensitive people, is that their blood appears to be sticky. This can be seen is live blood analysis, as something called rouleaux formation. Rouleaux is the effect of palatlets forming together, like rolls of coins. Electrohypersentivie people appear to have low z-potential of their blood, and if separation is initially good, their z-potential can be seen collapsing quickly, when exposed to EM fields. This is only results from private researchers so far. This effect is well established and known, among those that do live blood analysis of EHS people. I have suggested this topic for peer-reviewed research many times, but so far all I see is arguments on cancer, and whether there is a cellular mechanism, and what it could be. I propose this should be investigated much more thoroughtly, and it is a much easier effect to observe, than to try and figure out why the nanomachinery inside the cell is affected. But the reason I told you this, is only to show, that from my experience most people simplify their ideas of the possible mechanisms. The human body is an ELECTRICAL molecular-chemical nanomechanical machine. To function, it employs all the branches of physics at once, and this is the reason, why you cannot just be an electrical engineer, or a biologist, and think you can figure it out. You have to be a physicist, chemist, biologist, and nanomolecular expert, all at the same time, in order to begin to comprehend what is actually going on. I propose therefore, that EM interactions and biology, is one of the most complex topics of our time. Now here below, is a comment I wrote some while ago, which talks a bit more about the physics. This is only to increase understanding. It is only through understanding, that we can work towards better science and better models. It starts with understanding, and then we work our way from there. https://poal.co/s/Videos/434093/0afd8502-b2cb-4d81-b447-3dac3841bd54

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

But for the cell, on a general level, EMFs appear to cause oxidative stress

That's not explaining how radio waves cause damage. That's making a statement about what damage they allegedly cause. An explanation has to explain how radio waves induce oxidative stress, step-by-step, using principles of modern physics and chemistry. And then there needs to be experimental confirmation in human trials. Same for the zeta-potential theory.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

That's not explaining how radio waves cause damage. That's making a statement about what damage they allegedly cause. An explanation has to explain how radio waves induce oxidative stress, step-by-step, using principles of modern physics and chemistry. And then there needs to be experimental confirmation in human trials. Same for the zeta-potential theory.

Sure. But this is how science works. First we make an observation that there seems to be an effect, then we make a hypothesis, or several of them, and then we have to test and see which ones could be the correct ones. Right now the science is at the hypothesis level. Harm has been observed, and hypotheses are now being put forward.

For example, here is one hypothesis, which will give you part of the answer you are looking for. This is a loose description, of how peroxynitrite could form inside the cells, which would lead to oxidative stress.

https://i.imgur.com/xNzDsPo.png

Finally I'd like to make a small correction on using the term "alleged damage". No, damaga has been observed ever since radio waves were invented. This is from the US Library of Congress from 1966, where they discuss observations as far back as 20 years earlier.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200926123931/https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/642029.pdf

Here is another document from an international science conference held in Warsaw in 1973 on electromagnetic waves. This is an excerpt from a 350 page document, where Russian scientists describe their findings:

https://i.imgur.com/lWPz5v7.png

Here is a CIA declassified document from 1973. You can read the first page:

https://radiohacked.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/cia-rdp96-00787r000400080005-7.pdf

I only show these to point out that effects have been observed for a long time. It was only because the enormous commercial and military potential of radio waves were discovered, that we still insist on using them. They are not good for us, and this has been known for a long time.

This is a similar situation as with smoking. Today it is already common knowledge that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, yet some still do it.

EMF pollution is no different in term of the psychological willingness to be exposed. The only difference is, that it is not common knowledge yet. The tobacco industry was only exposed in the late 1950's. It was then revealed that the big tobacco companies had known smoking was both addictive and harmful all along, but they were very clever and proficient at hiding this information from the public. It is no different this time.

> That's not explaining how radio waves cause damage. That's making a statement about what damage they allegedly cause. An explanation has to explain how radio waves induce oxidative stress, step-by-step, using principles of modern physics and chemistry. And then there needs to be experimental confirmation in human trials. Same for the zeta-potential theory. Sure. But this is how science works. First we make an observation that there seems to be an effect, then we make a hypothesis, or several of them, and then we have to test and see which ones could be the correct ones. Right now the science is at the hypothesis level. Harm has been observed, and hypotheses are now being put forward. For example, here is one hypothesis, which will give you part of the answer you are looking for. This is a loose description, of how peroxynitrite could form inside the cells, which would lead to oxidative stress. https://i.imgur.com/xNzDsPo.png Finally I'd like to make a small correction on using the term "alleged damage". No, damaga has been observed ever since radio waves were invented. This is from the US Library of Congress from 1966, where they discuss observations as far back as 20 years earlier. https://web.archive.org/web/20200926123931/https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/642029.pdf Here is another document from an international science conference held in Warsaw in 1973 on electromagnetic waves. This is an excerpt from a 350 page document, where Russian scientists describe their findings: https://i.imgur.com/lWPz5v7.png Here is a CIA declassified document from 1973. You can read the first page: https://radiohacked.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/cia-rdp96-00787r000400080005-7.pdf I only show these to point out that effects have been observed for a long time. It was only because the enormous commercial and military potential of radio waves were discovered, that we still insist on using them. They are not good for us, and this has been known for a long time. This is a similar situation as with smoking. Today it is already common knowledge that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, yet some still do it. EMF pollution is no different in term of the psychological willingness to be exposed. The only difference is, that it is not common knowledge yet. The tobacco industry was only exposed in the late 1950's. It was then revealed that the big tobacco companies had known smoking was both addictive and harmful all along, but they were very clever and proficient at hiding this information from the public. It is no different this time.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

Harm has been observed, and hypotheses are now being put forward.

Where are the statistical data that have correlated harm with exposure to radio waves, and who is the control group that isn't exposed? It's important for the validity of the data that neither the subject or those recording the data know whether the subject is in the control group or the "real" group. Otherwise the data is compromised.

parent
link

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt

(post is archived)