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 )

Oh I know the inverse square law alright. The problem is your cellphone does not peg a Gigahertz (equipment manufacturer) microwave meter at a 1 meter distance. Unfortunately I do not know the absolute number, otherwise I would have told you instead of talking about pegging, which is essentially meaningless. But the point being the smart meter burst radiation seems to be above normal cell phone levels.

But the most important part is, that in those households where people get truly sick, the meter is on the other side of the wall of their bedroom, and nobody told the occupants they just got a mesh node installed right beside their head.

The thing is, as you well know, the inverse square law works the other way too, and you don't need to get much closer, and the radiation goes way up.

People that get damaged this way, can sleep exposed like this for a long time, before they understand what destroyed their health. And once the health is destroyed like this, it is almost impossible to recover. I know, because I was damaged by EM radiation almost 20 years ago. Once it happens, besides for a very small handful of people, there is no going back, and there is no cure.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Oh I know the inverse square law alright. The problem is your cellphone does not peg a Gigahertz (equipment manufacturer) microwave meter at a 1 meter distance.

Which meter? Do you have a make and model so we can confirm the results?

People that get damaged this way, can sleep exposed like this for a long time, before they understand what destroyed their health. And once the health is destroyed like this, it is almost impossible to recover. I know, because I was damaged by EM radiation almost 20 years ago. Once it happens, besides for a very small handful of people, there is no going back, and there is no cure.

No one's established that radio waves cause harm, let along low power ones. 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.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Which meter? Do you have a make and model so we can confirm the results?

This was from a documentary I saw many years ago, when the first generation SM rollout began in the US. I have to pick from visual memory, but my guess would be the HF35 model, or something very close to it. A point was made, that it offered pulse measurement, instead of average output.

parent
link

[–] • 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

Load more (2 replies)

(post is archived)