SUBSCRIBE TO GET NEWS ON MAIL

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Frist Page

Translate

Showing posts with label radiation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radiation. Show all posts

20 April 2013

Cell Phone Radiation & Cancer: Just How Much More Proof Do You Need?

 
Cell Phone's emit a dangerous non-ionizing form of electromagnetic radiation; radiation which can be absorbed by the tissues and cells which come into close contact with the phone, e.g., the head and neck. Scientific studies in the past have produced conflicting results; however, more recent studies working with long term exposure, (ten years or more), have clearly established that a link between cell phone use and certain forms of cancer exists.
Scientific proof
Drs. Lai and Singh (University of Washington) were the first to use the comet assay in rats to show DNA damage, double strand breaks, after being exposed to cell phone radiation. The comet assay is one of the most conclusive tests available to measure the fragmentation of DNA.
 
Their work coincides with the findings of Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy, MSc PhD, in The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields, from March 2012. Dr. Goldsworthy concludes that, "If similar DNA fragmentation were to occur in the whole organism, we would expect an increased risk of cancer, since essential genes that control cell division may be either damaged or lost."
Current studies looking at the incidence of brain cancer are backing this up. Using the cell phone on a regular basis almost doubles the chance of adult brain cancers on the side of the head used for talking on the phone. Cancers are not just confined to the brain. Cancers of the parotid salivary gland and the thyroid gland, located in the neck, are on the rise too.
 

Capitol Hill
In 2009 on Capitol Hill, several well respected experts testified on the potential health effects for cell phone users (270 million), in front of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee.
• Dr. John Bucher, Associate Director of the National Institutes of Health, National toxicology program, testified, "As of now, with only 10-12 years exposure, and use increasing dramatically, there is a concern of increase in brain cancer, related to use. Children have a configuration of the skull which allows deeper penetration of cell phone radiation with a potentially greater risk."
• Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, Cancer and radiation epidemiology director of the Chaim Sheba Medical Center, (Israel) conducted 10 years of research in this area and published findings in 2008 on the findings of salivary gland tumors with heavy usage. Dr. Sadetski saw consistent positive results and observed the tumors always appeared on the same side of the head where the phone was held.
• Dr. Devra Lee Davis, University of Pittsburgh, epidemiology professor, cited Dr. Leonard Hardell's work in Sweden on heavy cell phone use before age 20. "As adults these subjects had 4-6 times more brain tumors by the time they reached their 30s. For younger people, the risk increases to five times more." Dr. Davis goes on to testify, "If we tie in Dr. Lai and Dr. Singh's work with the human studies of Dr. Sadetski and others that have looked at people who have ten years of exposure or more, we have strong evidence."
• Dr. Davis also recommends holding a cell phone no closer than one inch to your body. Her suggestion comes straight out of the manual for the Blackberry and iPhone. "I am calling for warning labels. I am simply calling to codify what the industry is currently telling us about cell phones."
A final consideration: Dr. Lai came to the conclusion that certain findings coincided with who was backing the study financially. Almost seventy percent of the studies sponsored outside the industry showed a connection between cell phone use and health complications while less than 30% of the studies sponsored by the cell phone industry reported similar findings.
What the telecommunication companies don't want you to know
In 2010, Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, president of the Environmental Health Trust, and former White House adviser, wrote the book titled, "Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What The Industry Has Done To Hide It, and How To Protect Your Family." Dr. Davis shares her concerns, "If the industry doesn't make a positive move soon, we may have a global epidemic on our hands within the next two decades.
This global epidemic is not a scare tactic. There is study after study, over 500, on the ill effects of exposure to cell phone radiation.
Dr. Davis just wants the industry to be responsible. "We are asking the industry to give people the facts about known health risks from cell phone radiation exposure to children's brains and ensure people know how to best use these devices.
In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), released the statement that cell phone radiation is a "possible human carcinogen." Other "possible human carcinogens" include the exhaust from diesel engines and the banned (in this country) pesticide DDT.
Has this made a difference? Well, yes and no. Many other countries, including Canada, France, Turkey, and Israel have come out with safety guidelines, age appropriate advertising, and introduced an institute to conduct research on the subject, respectively.
In this country, a federal office has put out a public acknowledgment three times in the past almost 20 years in regards to the necessity of studying the health implications created by cell phones. Unfortunately, the funds for such research are neither there nor have the potential to be there anytime soon.
The CTIA and the Right-to -Know
Numerous local governments spread out across the country are sitting on drafts for cell phone Right-To-Know ordinances which would eventually become laws if passed.
Cell phone Right-to-Know laws are simple and succinct. It's the consumers right to know about any risks associated with using a cell phone and how to use the phone safely before the phone is actually purchased.
So, what is going on? Here's some insight. In the summer of 2010 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance giving residents of the community who purchased and used cell phones the right to know about the health risks and safety user guidelines associated with using the phone. The ordinance was signed into law by then mayor Gavin Newsom, the first of its kind.
The CTIA then sued San Francisco, both the city and the county, under the premise of violating cell phone company's first amendment rights. Some amendments were made to the law; however, the CTIA was not satisfied and has taken the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. CTIA is waiting to see if the decision will stand or be appealed.
According to their website, "CTIA is the International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry, Dedicated to Expanding the Wireless frontier. The association advocates on behalf of its members at all levels of government." CTIA has represented its members, the wireless communications industry, since 1984.
The industry seems to be hiding behind two things:
1. They contend they have never said cell phones were safe.
2. The manual which accompanies the cell phone states in tiny wording that a cell phone should never be held next to the body in order to avoid exceeding the exposure limits set by the FCC.
This is akin to lying by omission and supplying the public with information the industry knows the consumer will never get. Clearly, telecommunication companies don't want cell phone users to be fully informed or question the safety of cell phones.
Sources for this article include:
http://worldtruth.tv



19 April 2013

Obama Approves Raising Permissible Levels of Nuclear Radiation in Drinking Water

atomic_radiation
Civilian Cancer Deaths Expected to Skyrocket Following Radiological Incidents
The White House has given final approval for dramatically raising permissible radioactive levels in drinking water and soil following “radiological incidents,” such as nuclear power-plant accidents and dirty bombs. The final version, slated for Federal Register publication as soon as today, is a win for the nuclear industry which seeks what its proponents call a “new normal” for radiation exposure among the U.S population, according Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, the radiation guides (called Protective Action Guides or PAGs) allow cleanup many times more lax than anything EPA has ever before accepted. These guides govern evacuations, shelter-in-place orders, food restrictions and other actions following a wide range of “radiological emergencies.” The Obama administration blocked a version of these PAGs from going into effect during its first days in office. The version given approval late last Friday is substantially similar to those proposed under Bush but duck some of the most controversial aspects:
In soil, the PAGs allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems. This would, in effect, increase a longstanding 1 in 10,000 person cancer rate to a rate of 1 in 23 persons exposed over a 30-year period;

  • In water, the PAGs punt on an exact new standard and EPA “continues to seek input on this.” But the thrust of the PAGs is to give on-site authorities much greater “flexibility” in setting aside established limits; and
  • Resolves an internal fight inside EPA between nuclear versus public health specialists in favor of the former. The PAGs are the product of Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator for air and radiation whose nomination to serve as EPA Administrator is taken up this week by the Senate.
  • Despite the years-long internal fight, this is the first public official display of these guides. This takes place as Japan grapples with these same issues in the two years following its Fukushima nuclear disaster.
“This is a public health policy only Dr. Strangelove could embrace. If this typifies the environmental leadership we can expect from Ms. McCarthy, then EPA is in for a long, dirty slog,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the EPA package lacks a cogent rationale, is largely impenetrable and hinges on a series of euphemistic “weasel words.”
“No compelling justification is offered for increasing the cancer deaths of Americans innocently exposed to corporate miscalculations several hundred-fold.”
Reportedly, the PAGs had been approved last fall but their publication was held until after the presidential election. The rationale for timing their release right before McCarthy’s confirmation hearing is unclear.
Since the PAGs guide agency decision-making and do not formally set standards or repeal statutory requirements, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and Superfund, they will go into full effect following a short public comment period. Nonetheless, the PAGs will likely determine what actions take place on the ground in the days, weeks, months and, in some cases, years following a radiological emergency.
Source: