Antiwar and pro environmental to educate people on the cover ups going on in the nuclear radiation field. Political, social and economic news to be used to educate the general public. Aimed to stimulate activism.
Copper mining/uranium; hydrofracking; metane hydrate; depleted uranium weaponry; cellphone and other handy radiations; body scanners, et al, are covered.
Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian on “Collateral Damage: America’s War Against Iraqi Civilians”
In their new book, journalists Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian bring us the voices of fifty American combat veterans of the Iraq War and their understanding of the US occupation and why Iraqis are so opposed to it. [includes rush transcript]
Guests:
Chris Hedges, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Senior Fellow at the Nation Institute. He was the former Middle East Bureau Chief of the New York Times. He is the author of several books, including War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning and American Fascists. His latest book is Collateral Damage: America’s War Against Iraqi Civilians.
Laila Al-Arian, Freelance journalist who has written for several publications including USA Today, The Nation magazine, HuffingtonPost.com, and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. She is the co-author of Collateral Damage: America’s War Against Iraqi Civilians.
Yesterday the "Making the Lakes Great" conference conclusions was posted on the H2O list by Dr. Gail Krantzberg, Director of the McMaster Univ. Dofasco Centre for Engineering and Public Policy, under the subject heading, "energy options to protect Great Lakes waters".
And the conference conclusions, translated, mean a US-Canada integrated power grid, based on primarily carbon sequestered tar sands and coal sources, and nukes, with some wind, sun, and geothermal thrown in for PR. The dirty sources are to be heavily subsidized by government, with high consumer pricing supposedly for energy and water 'conservation' (of course while industry gets bulk reduced rates, and while shareholders make record gains). Measured by an integrated metred system with data collation, analysis, and all policy formulation to be carried out by a new 'government' structure, no doubt to be a P3 as other new federal and Ontario infrastructure boards are, heavily embedded with the same players that gathered at this conference.
We can do better.
Dust off the better studies sitting on the shelf that show there's enough wind and sun on the planet to fuel 6X our current use, and conserve by getting rid of dirty industries, with transition programs for unionized workers to build the renewables, rather than mainly the nonrenewables and nukes. Do all of the above with public power, not the exorbitant costs of privatized P3 power. Eliminate speculation, and pull self-governance from industry heads and investors. Roll-back NAFTA and put a moratorium on further entrenching of the SPP, TILMA, and bilateral deals.
Do not use 'renewable energy' to mean building more hydro dams and canals to channel more Hudson Bay Basin water down to the Great Lakes, killing what's left of our wild north for the sake of profiteers who don't have the smarts and humility to shift gears.
And above all, read beyond 'green' headlines to expose and reject policy which would entrench the problems.
Thanks to all activists for your work for real change, inspite of the kind of nonsense noted here, tossed from various quarters.
Our words and actions, of critique and substantive alternatives, are the change we want to see.
What do brain surgeons know about cellphone safety that the rest of us don’t?
Last week, three prominent neurosurgeons told the CNN interviewer Larry King that they did not hold cellphones next to their ears. “I think the safe practice,” said Dr. Keith Black, a surgeon at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, “is to use an earpiece so you keep the microwave antenna away from your brain.”
Dr. Vini Khurana, an associate professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University who is an outspoken critic of cellphones, said: “I use it on the speaker-phone mode. I do not hold it to my ear.” And CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon at Emory University Hospital, said that like Dr. Black he used an earpiece.
Along with Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s recent diagnosis of a glioma, a type of tumor that critics have long associated with cellphone use, the doctors’ remarks have helped reignite a long-simmering debate about cellphones and cancer.
That supposed link has been largely dismissed by many experts, including the American Cancer Society. The theory that cellphones cause brain tumors “defies credulity,” said Dr. Eugene Flamm, chairman of neurosurgery at Montefiore Medical Center.
According to the Food and Drug Administration, three large epidemiology studies since 2000 have shown no harmful effects. CTIA — the Wireless Association, the leading industry trade group, said in a statement, “The overwhelming majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals around the globe show that wireless phones do not pose a health risk.”
The F.D.A. notes, however, that the average period of phone use in the studies it cites was about three years, so the research doesn’t answer questions about long-term exposures. Critics say many studies are flawed for that reason, and also because they do not distinguish between casual and heavy use.
Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation, waves of energy that are too weak to break chemical bonds or to set off the DNA damage known to cause cancer. There is no known biological mechanism to explain how non-ionizing radiation might lead to cancer.
But researchers who have raised concerns say that just because science can’t explain the mechanism doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. Concerns have focused on the heat generated by cellphones and the fact that the radio frequencies are absorbed mostly by the head and neck. In recent studies that suggest a risk, the tumors tend to occur on the same side of the head where the patient typically holds the phone.
Like most research on the subject, the studies are observational, showing only an association between cellphone use and cancer, not a causal relationship. The most important of these studies is called Interphone, a vast research effort in 13 countries, including Canada, Israel and several in Europe.
Some of the research suggests a link between cellphone use and three types of tumors: glioma; cancer of the parotid, a salivary gland near the ear; and acoustic neuroma, a tumor that essentially occurs where the ear meets the brain. All these cancers are rare, so even if cellphone use does increase risk, the risk is still very low.
Last year, The American Journal of Epidemiology published data from Israel finding a 58 percent higher risk of parotid gland tumors among heavy cellphone users. Also last year, a Swedish analysis of 16 studies in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine showed a doubling of risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma after 10 years of heavy cellphone use.
“What we’re seeing is suggestions in epidemiological studies that have looked at people using phones for 10 or more years,” says Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, an industry publication that tracks the research. “There are some very disconcerting findings that suggest a problem, although it’s much too early to reach a conclusive view.”
Some doctors say the real concern is not older cellphone users, who began using phones as adults, but children who are beginning to use phones today and face a lifetime of exposure.
“More and more kids are using cellphones,” said Dr. Paul J. Rosch, clinical professor of medicine and psychiatry at New York Medical College. “They may be much more affected. Their brains are growing rapidly, and their skulls are thinner.”
For people who are concerned about any possible risk, a simple solution is to use a headset. Of course, that option isn’t always convenient, and some critics have raised worries about wireless devices like the Bluetooth that essentially place a transmitter in the ear.
The fear is that even if the individual risk of using a cellphone is low, with three billion users worldwide, even a minuscule risk would translate into a major public health concern.
“We cannot say with any certainty that cellphones are either safe or not safe,” Dr. Black said on CNN. “My concern is that with the widespread use of cellphones, the worst scenario would be that we get the definitive study 10 years from now, and we find out there is a correlation.”
Cellphones emit varying levels of radiation, depending on make and model. (Lisa Poole/Associated Press)
The technology news site CNET has compiled two interesting lists showing which cellphones give off the most and the least radiation.
In publishing the information, CNET editors note the data aren’t meant to imply that cellphone radiation poses a risk, nor is it meant to say that the phones are safe. As I recently reported in my Well column last week, the data on cellphone safety is mixed, although a few recent international studies have suggested a link with three types of brain tumors. The Food and Drug Administration also says there’s not enough information to determine conclusively whether cellphones are safe or unsafe.
The charts focus on the specific absorption rate, or SAR, of a cellphone, which is a way of measuring the quantity of radio frequency energy that is absorbed by the body, according to CNET.
For a phone to pass F.C.C. certification, that phone’s maximum SAR level must be less than 1.6 W/kg (watts per kilogram). In Europe, the level is capped at 2 W/kg, while Canada allows a maximum of 1.6 W/kg. The SAR level listed in our charts represents the highest SAR level with the phone next to the ear as tested by the F.C.C. Keep in mind that it is possible for the SAR level to vary between different transmission bands and that different testing bodies can obtain different results. Also, it’s possible for results to vary between different editions of the same phone (such as a handset that’s offered by multiple carriers).
Four Motorola phones top the list, with the V195s putting out the maximum 1.6 W/kg. The popular BlackBerry Curve 8330 rounds out the No. 5 spot. To see the full top 10 list, click here.
The list of lowest-radiation cellphones includes the LG KG800 and the Motorola Razr V3x, which put out 0.135 W/kg and 0.14 W/kg, respectively. To see all the lowest radiation phones, click here.
If you don’t see your phone on the list, the site includes lists of cellphones by brand name. My iPhone was listed under “other” brands, but I was interested to learn that its SAR number is 0.974.
"Growing evidence that mobile phone radiation affects living tissues - health risks? " Video comment by Dr Patrick Dixon on research showing possible health risks from heavy exposure to mobile phone radiation. Risks probably very small in normal use. WAIT FOR PAGE TO LOAD - PRESS PLAY - MAY NEED TO PRESS AGAIN AND WAIT
2.5 times risk of brain tumours from phone radiation in humans? Early Alzheimers disease from destroyed brain cells? Reports showing no health risk at all? Each month we see more reports about mobile phone radiation effects - but what does it actually mean for you and me? Is there really a health risk? Here is a common-sense personal view from a physician and parent of four children who is also a major user of wireless devices of all kinds.
New reports continue to be published several times a year, suggesting that there might be health risks from mobile phones electromagnetic radiation. Yet other studies show little or no health impact.
There can be no doubt any longer that mobile phone radiation affects living cells. For example research shows that nematode worms exposed to mobile phone radiation produce more eggs, release stress hormones and grow larger.
But what is the effect of mobile phone radiation on people? Could we see a mass court action in twenty years time against telecom companies by people claiming compensation for health damage caused by radiation? It's a possibility, even though at present the clear evidence suggests that if there is any effect on human health at all from use of a mobile phone, the electromagnetic radiation risk is very, very low for the individual user.
However some studies have caused concern in the media. For example, in October 2004, scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm gave a new warning about mobile phone radiation and brain tumours - accoustic neuromas (published in the journal Epidemiology). They found that long term users of mobile phones were four times as likely to develop growths on the side they held the phone, and twice as likely as non-users to develop these benign non-cancerous growths. They saw no increased risk from mobile phone radiation in those who had used mobile phones for less than 10 years. The study was of 150 mobile phone users, compared to 60 in a control group.
March 2003 another study in the International Journal of Oncology suggested that mobile phone users had a 30% increased risk of brain tumours - mainly accoustic neuromas - which occurred close to the ear used for mobile phone listening. Previous studies had shown that growth of leukaemia cells could be increased dramatically after exposure to mobile phone radiation. Although accoustic neuromas do not metastasise (jump to invade other parts of the body) they can create serious problems if intreated. The early symptoms can be hearing loss, loss of balance or noises in one ear - but all these are very common for many other reasons. Advanced growths can invade other nearby areas, causing pressure on the brain.
What makes these studies difficult to evaluate is that a number of other research studies into mobile phone radiation have not shown the same findings. And the effects may be very different depending on the type of electromagnetic radiation. GSM and GPRS (2.5G) phones use what is known as pulsed radiation. The levels rise and fall very rapidly. 3G phones on the other hand use continuous levels. Some research suggests that pulsed radiation may have a greater effect on cells than constant exposure, which is important because different studies have used different types of radiation - perhaps an explanation for some of the more confusing results.
Short exposure to mobile phone radiation kills brain cells in rats
Short exposure to Mobile phone radiation - two hours - has been reported in 2003 to destroy cells in parts of the brain important for memory, movement and learning, and could possibly conceivably premature onset of illnesses such as Alzheimers - although we have no evidence of a similar effect in humans. Lund University Hospital Professor Leif Salford says mobile radiation allows harmful proteins and toxins through the brain barrier in rats. He also has found significant degree of damage to brain neurons in adolescent rats.
He said: "If this effect was to transfer to young mobile users, the effects could be terrifying. We can see reduced brain reserve capacity, meaning those who might normally have got Alzheimer's or dementia in old age could get it much earlier." He used rats aged 12-26 weeks because their brain cells were still developing in a similar way to teenagers and younger children. They were exposed for just 120 minutes to radiation equivalent to typical intensive mobile phone use. Sections of rat brains were examined 50 days after exposure. Animals exposed to medium and high level radiation had many dead neurons in their brains - totally different from rats which were not exposed to radiation. (published Feb 2003).
The trouble is that similar studies cannot be carried out in humans because mobile phone radiation exposure would have to be followed by brain biopsy which can cause epilepsy later, permanent brain damage, stroke or even death. We can only get the answer in humans by doing studies on brain tissue of teenagers killed in accidents, and comparing brain tissue of heavy, medium, light and non-users of mobile phones. In addition, we have yet to see other centres replicate his work.
Dr Kjell Hansson Mild in Sweden studied radiation risk in 11,000 mobile telephone users. Symptoms such as fatigue, headaches, burning sensations on the skin were more common among those who made longer mobile phone calls. At the same time there are a growing number of unconfirmed reports of individuals whose health has been affected after chronic, frequent use of mobile phones, presumably from radiation effects on cells. See below for SAR data on mobile phone radiation levels. Once again, for every study with a positive finding of effect on cells, there is another that has found nothing.
As I say, from a physician's point of view this is all rather difficult to interpret. The truth is that no one knows for sure, but it looks as though the health risks for an individual person with normal patterns of use are extremely low, almost non-existent. I still use a mobile phone, as do our teenage children, and my home has a wireless network as well as hands-free local handsets for landlines. The only steps we have taken are to mount the wireless LAN connection a few feet from where anyone sits, and to encourage our younger children not to spend their entire lives chatting away on mobiles - there are other reasons for that too such as homework and of course cost.
As long ago as June 1998 the Lancet reported that radiation from mobiles caused an increase of blood pressure. Dr Braune and colleagues in Freiburg, Germany, attached mobiles to the right side of the heads of ten volunteers. The phones were switched on and off by remote control without the volunteers knowing - so that any radiation effect could be separated from the psychological effect of holding a mobile phone. Their blood pressure rose each time by between 5-10mm Hg, probably from an electromagnetic radiation induced constrictive effect on blood vessels from the mobile phones.
This level of increase would be more than enough to trigger a stroke or heart attack in someone at severe risk, but is harmless in the vast majority of people. This was the first firm evidence that mobile phone radiation could directly alter cell function in the human body. But what about longer term radiation effects of using mobile phones? Could mobile phone exposure trigger cancer? Birth defects? What about the health risks not just from mobile phones but the transmitter masts?
This work on human subjects follows other ealier mobile phone studies in animals suggesting that electromagnetic radiation from mobiles may cause brain tumours, cancer, anxiety, memory loss and serious birth defects. But different studies have contradicted many of these findings. As in so much of cutting edge science, there are real uncertainties about mobile phone radiation. Remember it has taken 30 years to work out the side-effects of oral contraceptives and even that is still debated. Here are some of the more negative reports.
An Australian study found that mice exposed to pulsed digital mobile phone radiation over 18 months had twice the risk of developing cancers. An American study found that learning and short term memory were impaired after 45 minutes exposure to electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones in rats. And other studies of electromagnetic radiation on pregnant mice suggest that high exposure to mobile phones can affect intra-uterine development, confirmed recently in chicks (double birth defects, see below). The effects of mobile phone radiation in human embryo development are unknown.
Meanwhile, The European Union is drawing up guidelines for electromagnetic radiation exposure of all types.
Mobile phones vary on radiation dosage: Following figures are for European mobile phones in SARS (watts of radiation from mobile phones per kg of brain), antenna extended / retracted. Safety is 10 watts/kg. Lowest radiation levels from phones with hidden antennae or ones extended away from head. Below that are SAR levels for US mobile phones. Note that there are different figures for SAR levels around for the same mobile phones, I suspect because some are official company data, and others independent lab measurements and that there may be other variables according to the exact conditions. For example the first table below shows big SAR phone radiation differences depending on the position of the aerial.
List of some European mobile phone SAR levels
Manufacturer and Model
Extended/retracted SAR level
1. Nokia 2110
0.44/0.25
2. Nokia 5110
0.37
3. Nokia 6110
0.29
4. Bosch World 718
0.28/0.33
5. Ericsson GA628
0.26
6. Hagenuk Global Handy
0.03
7. Motorola Star V3688
0.02
8. Motorola Star TAC 70
0.02/0.01
(Source: National Physical Laboratory UK.)
List of top 10 highest radiation mobile phones in the US - SAR
(Source of both tables above: official manufacturers SAR data sent to FCC, and then collated by DoMode.com and CNET.com. These figures may not be 100% accurate and Global Change Ltd cannot take responsibility for them.)
The greatest risk to a mobile phone user is from an accident while distracted - particularly when driving. This risk is likely to be many tens of thousands of times greater than a radiation hazard.
Evidence from human studies of mobile phone radiation is now of raised blood pressure, direct brain warming (very mild) as well as of mild sensations in heavy users. These effects are short term and unlikely to cause any health problems in the vast majority of users even over many years.
There is no evidence so far of mobile phone radiation causing tumour formation or memory impairment in humans - may be memory enhancing. Much more research needed.
Mice, rats and chickens may be more sensitive to electromagnetic effects from mobile phones on their cells. So results on animals may not be valid for humans. We just don't know.
Further human studies of mobile phone health risks are urgently needed, because of the very large numbers using mobiles.
Whatever effects of using mobile phones there may be in humans, the health risk to an individual user from electromagnetic radiation is likely to be very, very small indeed, but it is possible that some individuals may be more prone to radiation side effects than others.
Expect large numbers of people to come forward with claims that a wide variety of conditions have been triggered or made worse by use of mobile phones. These claims will be extremely difficult to prove. Even if a link is shown, proving that a particular case was directly related to heavy mobile phone use is almost impossible. This has been the case, for example, over Gulf War syndrome, or reactions to MMR vaccine, or the debates over passive smoking, or clustering of leukaemia cases near power stations.
If the case against mobiles were to become established in people's minds, expect many lawsuits alleging that other sources of electromagnetic radiation have also damaged health or caused birth defects - for example electricity sub-stations, computers, generators, minicab aerials.
Some manufacturers already sell radiation shields for mobiles, reducing electromagnetic radiation to the head. Many or most of these seem to be based on very doubtful claims.
Moving the mobile phone aerial eight inches from the head, instead of one inch, would dramatically reduce exposure - dose falls to 1/64th as the square of the distance.
Good quality, screened hands free mobile phone kits, allowing earpiece and microphone attached to phone in pocket, massively reduce brain exposure to electromagnetic radiation, but may increase exposure to the pelvis and the unborn - again with significance unknown!
Other News
UK government report says now clear that mobile phone radiation can affect brain function. Now that 20,000 radio masts in the UK are active it means that everyone is being subjected to constant low level electromagnetic radiation. Sunday Times 12 March 2000.
However, the levels from phone masts are suprisingly tiny. A single mobile phone can generate a watt of radiation, which it needs to get a signal the long distance to the nearest mast. However, a mast only needs in many cases a power of around 8 watts to handle all the calls in the area. It has a physical advantage because of great height, and the radio spectrum from the mast is wide enough for it to manage all the calls with a low wattage. It is strange quirk of physics. And because the radiation dose falls dramatically with every 10 centimetres of distance, you can see that the radiation exposure of people living close to a mast is likely to be a minute fraction of the dose if they were making a mobile call themselves.
New research suggests living downwind from an electricity pylon can increase the risk of lung cancer significantly. Ionisation of the air causes microscopic pollution particles to become charged so they stick to the lining of the lung. Once again though this has been contradicted by other research. September 2000
Mobile phone increases the temperature of the brain (Sciences et vie, No. 949 10/96) and raises blood pressure (publication of the University of Fribourg in the Lancet, 06/07 - 98.
The next techno-wave: RFID - 10 billion wireless tagging devices Wal-Mart races ahead with Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFIDs): electronic barcodes for manufacturing, distribution and retail - major concerns about data leakage, privacy and civil rights
Future impact of global warming on human life Truth about global warming research. How consumers, business and governments will respond. Opportunities / threats from climate change.
Blogs - web / video diaries on trends / management by Dr Patrick Dixon
Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going?
Trying to train the next generation of diplomats what the issues that they will face are, how to survive the coming hard times and how to conduct themselves so that they, unlike most of their role models, DO THE RIGHT THING. They are inheriting a neocon Klusterfuck, are ill prepared and need whatever help they can get.
