This from the Next-Up Organization:

Olle Johansson, PhD Announcing Seletun Scientific Statement from ElectromagneticHealth.Org on Vimeo.

PRESS RELEASE from the Karolinska Institute, Department of Neuroscience, Stockholm,
Sweden, February 3, 2011

Scientists Urge Halt of Wireless Rollout and Call for New Safety Standards: Warning
Issued on Risks to Children and Pregnant Women

Scientists who study radiofrequency radiation from wireless technologies have issued a
scientific statement warning that exposures may be harming the development of children at levels now commonly found in the environment. Pregnant women are cautioned to avoid using wireless devices themselves and distance themselves from other users.

The Seletun Scientific Statement has now been published in Reviews on Environmental Health (2010; 25: 307-317). The article recommends that lower limits be established for electromagnetic fields and wireless exposures, based on scientific studies reporting health impacts at much lower exposure levels. Many researchers now believe the existing safety limits are inadequate to protect public health because they do not consider prolonged exposure to lower emission levels that are now widespread.
“Current US and ICNIRP standards for radiofrequency and microwave radiation from
wireless technologies are entirely inadequate. They never were intended to address the kind of exposures from wireless devices that now affect over 4 billion people.”
(Olle Johansson, professor, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of
Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, and The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden) Read more…

From ElectroMagneticHealth.org

The Seletun Scientific Panel today announces a Consensus Agreement
including ’10 Key Recommendations to Protect Public Health.’ They say the global population is at risk, that the current accepted measure of
radiation risk, the SAR, is inadequate, and that there is abundant
evidence biological effects are occurring at exposures ‘many orders of
magnitude’ below existing public safety standards.

1. The Global Population Is At Risk.
2. Sensitive Populations Are Currently Vulnerable.
3. Government Actions Are Warranted Now Based on Evidence of Serious
Disruption to Biological Systems.
4. The Burden of Proof for the Safety of Radiation-Emitting
Technologies Should Fall on Producers and Providers Not Consumers.
5. EMF Exposures Should Be Reduced in Advance of Complete
Understanding of Mechanisms of Action.
6. The Current Accepted Measure of Radiation Risk “the Specific
Absorption Rate (‘SAR’)” is Inadequate, and Misguides on Safety and Risk.
7. An International Disease Registry Is Needed To Track Time Trends of
Illnesses to Correlate Illnesses with Exposures.
8. Pre-Market Health Testing and Safety Demonstration is Needed for
All Radiation-Emitting Technologies.
9. Parity is Needed for Occupational Exposure Standards
10. ‘Functional Impairment’ Designation Needed for Persons with
Electrohypersensitivity.

In the United States, Congressman Dennis Kucinich announced on June
30, 2010 that he would introduce a bill calling for a U.S. cell phone
research program, warning labels on cell phones and an update of
antiquated radiation exposure standards. Six months later, no bill has
yet been introduced in Congress (https://tinyurl.com/4w43dks).

Earlier, in September 2009, Senate hearings were held on the health
effects of cell phones, presided over by Senators Arlen Specter and
Tom Harkin (https://tinyurl.com/469hbst). To the dismay of scientists,no action has yet been taken since the hearing sixteen months ago. At the hearing, Sen. Harkin said, ‘I found this really very interesting
and very challenging and I can assure you we are going to do some follow-up on this.’ Nothing has happened since.

Olle Johansson, PhD, who chaired the Seletun Scientific Panel, says

‘Current US and ICNIRP standards for radiofrequency and microwave
radiation from wireless technologies are entirely inadequate. They
never were intended to address the kind of exposures from wireless
devices that now affect over 4 billion people.’

Elihu Richter, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Professor (Retired),
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University, Hadassah
School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Jerusalem, Isreal, says,

‘We are already seeing increases in health problems such as cancer and
neurobehavioural impairments, even though these wireless technologies
are fairly new in the last decades or so for the general public. This
finding suggests that the exposures are already too high to protect
people from health harm.’

Public health advocate, Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org, says,

‘Each time there is a briefing or hearing in a government body around
the world, lip service is paid to the concerns of scientists,
professors, physicians and citizens. Through their inaction, global
governments have supported the interests of the telecommunications
industry. We hope the Seletun Scientific Statement will finally get
the attention this very serious public health issue deserves.’

Read Full Announcement With Photos and Transcript of Video
(https://tinyurl.com/4hlsga8)

Journalists wanting to read the full published paper, please contact
Dr. Johansson at Olle.Johansson@ki.se or +46-(0)8-52487073.

Contacts: ElectromagneticHealth.org
Camilla Rees, 415-992-5093
CRGR@aol.com

Emily Roberson, 610-707-1602
Emily@ElectromagneticHealth.org
========
Please remember, your bite-size contributions on our Donate Page are what help keep us going

The ‘Product Defense Industry’ at Work

As David Michaels’ revealing book, Doubt is Their Product – How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health makes clear, manufacturing uncertainty and confusion is one of the main tools in the corporate playbook. The pattern holds whether it applies to chemicals, pesticides, tobacco, asbestos, climate change or…wireless technologies. The following two pieces illustrate that beautifully.

[Credit – Annie Tritt for The New York Times:
Deborah Tavares, with a sign protesting smart-meter installations, in Sebastopol, Calif.]

First, this pathetically brainwashed/brainwashing piece from the great “newspaper of record, the New York Times:”

Are We Hard-Wired to Doubt Science?
By FELICITY BARRINGER

In researching Monday’s article about opposition to smart meters, I found myself once again facing a dilemma built into environmental reporting: how to evaluate whether claims of health effects caused by some environmental contaminant — chemicals, noise, radiation, whatever — are potentially valid? I turned, as usual, to the peer-reviewed science.

But some very intelligent people I interviewed had little use for the existing (if sparse) science. How, in a rational society, does one understand those who reject science, a common touchstone of what is real and verifiable? [ Good Question for this brainwashed or complicit reporter to answer by looking at what follows…]

Now, check this out from UK activist Eileen O’Connor of pandora-foundation.eu:

Attempt to Destroy Scientific Mobile Telecommunication Data at the Medical University of Vienna Failed

Berlin, 31 January 2011 – Mid-2007 Prof. Alexander Lerchl, a biologist at the private Jacobs University Bremen and a member of the German Commission on Radiological Protection at the Federal Office for Radiation Protection, informs the rector of the Medical University of Vienna, Prof. Wolfgang Schütz, about a serious suspicion: the findings described in two publications from the Division of Occupational Medicine of his university are most likely fraudulent. This news is picked up by numerous national and international media, with the German newsmagazine

Der Spiegel leading the way, and broadcasted to the whole world. The documentation provided on our website (https://www.pandora-foundation.eu) reports on the strenuous attempts to remove the Vienna research findings, which indicate that cell phone radiation has a cancer-causing potential, from the scientific literature. Two scientists in important social positions, who certainly can be sure of the mobile phone industry’s appreciation, were in front of the line. That they disregard the information of the general public in favour of the cell phone industry do both – as it seems – approvingly accept.

The documentation published by Pandora – Foundation for Independent Research reveals the strategies used by the Viennese rector, which he, of course, would like to be understood as his personal commitment to truth in science. A further documentation will report on Prof. Lerchl’s activities that exceed even the rector’s schemes. As shown in the documentation, the Council for Scientific Ethics at the Medical University of Vienna and later in addition the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity – both mandated to clarify the case – had a hard time deciding as to whether they should fully honour the truth in science or not. In order to forestall uncomfortable decisions with far-reaching consequences, which would have been inevitable, they agreed on a compromise. Independently of each other, both commissions stated that there is no evidence that the suspected team manipulated its data. Both commissions also left no doubt that they consider the scientific quality of the Viennese research findings as being poor. In this way, they not only overstepped their mandate and competence, but at the same time also ensured that the two masterminds of this scandal and the academic facilities they head did not completely lose their reputation.

Even if the cell phone industry with its “war gaming” strategy, which it has been using with success in the US in the 90s of the past century, should have succeeded in discrediting and devaluing the Viennese research findings in the eyes of many people, this victory has meanwhile become meaningless. Because in the meantime – as shown in the documentation – several publications have been released whose findings agree with those obtained in Vienna.

Furthermore, epidemiological research provides more and more findings that the damage to the genome of human cells, as has been observed in Vienna and elsewhere, can certainly contribute to the development of malignant tumours. Still to come, in January 2011 research findings of an epidemiological study from Israel will be published showing that the incidence of tumours of the parotid gland, which belongs to the sites of the highest exposure to cell phone radiation, has quadrupled since 1970, with the highest increase occurring after 2001. That the human brain will be more resistant to cell phone radiation is highly unlikely in regard of already available epidemiological research data. It remains to be seen how the cell phone industry and its friends in the scientific community will respond to that.

Prof. Dr. Franz Adlkofer & Prof. Dr. Karl Richter
Board of Pandora – Foundation for Independent Research

Trustee: Andreas Kaffka
Birkenwerderstrasse 27b
OT Bergfelde
D-16562 Hohen Neuendorf
FOR THE DOCUMENTATION SEE: https://www.pandora-foundation.eu

For more details on this, please see:

About the Handling of Scientific Findings Regarding Mobile Phone Research at the Medical University of Vienna
Franz Adlkofer and Karl Richter

Mid-2007 Prof. Alexander Lerchl, biologist at the private Jacobs University in Bremen and member of the German Commission on Radiological Protection (SSK) of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), informs the rector of the Medical University of Vienna (MUV), Prof. Wolfgang Schütz, about a serious suspicion: the findings of research carried out at the Division of Occupational Medicine of his university and published in Mutation Research in 2005 (Diem et al.) are most likely fraudulent. Shortly thereafter, he makes the same accusation against another study from the same laboratory, which was published in the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health (IAOEH) at the beginning of 2008 (Schwarz et al.). In spring 2008, the rector mandates the newly appointed Council for Scientific Ethics of MUV, which consists of three persons he trusts, to clarify the expressed suspicion. Without thoroughly examining the allegations, this Council confirms the accusation of data fabrication already after its first meeting on May 16, 2008. As a result, the rector demands of the authors to immediately retract their publications from Mutation Research and the International Archives. He also demands of the editors – just like Prof. Lerchl did before – to remove the publications from their scientific journals because of a suspected serious scientific fraud. A first press release by the rector and a first report in the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel written by the journalist Manfred Dworschak immediately broadcast the allegedly confirmed fraud scandal to the whole world.
However, a few days after the meeting of the Council for Scientific Ethics it is accidentally revealed that the rector-appointed Council chair has been a lawyer employed by the Austrian mobile phone industry. Because of suspicion of partiality, Prof. Hugo Rüdiger, the former director of the Clinical Division of Occupational Medicine and corresponding author of both publications, requests the immediate removal of this Council chair who, according to the Council’s statutes, should never have been appointed to this position. He also withdraws the signatures he gave to letters presented to him and addressed to the editors of the two journals, in which he had declared his willingness to retract the publications. The team member accused of data fabrication follows his example. Thus, they both join the decision of the two co-authors Prof. Franz Adlkofer (Munich) and Prof. Niels Kuster (Zurich) who are independent of the MUV rector and who strictly refused from very beginning to withdraw the publications as requested by Prof. Schütz and Prof. Lerchl. Due to the pressure created by the events, the rector sees himself finally forced to replace the industry employee suspected of partiality with a new chair. The successor is a former lawyer in public administration who indeed is independent. In the meetings on June 19, July 24, September 25, and November 13, 2008, under his chair the Council for Scientific Ethics comes to the conclusion that the suspicion of fraud cannot be proven. [Read more… ]

Smart Meter Pushback Gets National Attention

[left: photo credit -Annie Tritt for The New York Times –
Katharina Sandizell, at home with her sons Jacob, left, and Luca, helped block meter trucks in Marin County. ]

Proving the aphorism that ‘resistance is fertile,’ West Marin organizing against PG&E’s dictatorial plan to install wireless so-called ‘smart’ meters is drawing the nervous attention of both the national media and the international power-telecom industry.

Check out…
New Electricity Meters Stir Fears
By FELICITY BARRINGER

INVERNESS PARK, Calif. — Pacific Gas and Electric’s campaign to introduce wireless smart meters in Northern California is facing fierce opposition from an eclectic mix of Tea Party conservatives and left-leaning individualists who say the meters threaten their liberties and their health…. [read more]

Telecoms Target Fire Houses with Wireless Antenna Build-out
Despite the opposition of the International Association of Fire Fighters to placing wireless antennas on fire houses, telecom companies continue to press local fire departments – like that in Bolinas, CA – to do just that. Citizens and Fire Board Members examine this universal issue in this lively Jan. 24, 2011 community meeting. [Scroll down for video]

“The International Association of Fire Fighters’ position on locating cell towers commercial wireless infrastructure on fire department facilities, as adopted by its membership in August 2004, is that the IAFF oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.”

Why Firefighter’s Association is concerned about RF radiation

Below Susan Foster, medical social worker, medical writer, and the initiator and organizer of the first brain study ever done of firefighters who have lived/worked with a cell tower on their station for over 5 years, explains her alarming test results.

Susan Dana Foster
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
15957 Avenida Calma
Rancho Santa Fe, California 92091
(858) 756-3532

January 17, 2011

Susan Hackwood, PhD,
Executive Director, California Council on Science and Technology
Lora Lee Martin,
Director, Strategic Policy Initiatives and Government Affairs
California Council on Science and Technology
5005 La Mart Drive, Suite 105
Riverside, CA 92507

Re:  Smart Meter Health Impact
(For Southern California, yet speaking on behalf of the entire State)

Dear Dr. Hackwood and Ms. Martin:

I have just read the New York Times article by Colin Sullivan and Debra Kahn, and feel I must speak out, for there are voices you are not hearing, and risks that have gone under-assessed.

I am a resident of Rancho Santa Fe, CA, in North County San Diego. The utility company in my area is SDG&E. I am afraid Southern California does not have the activists that Northern California can rightfully and proudly claim.  Yet our silence should not be misconstrued as lack of concern, and by no means is there an absence of symptoms from smart meters which were deployed in 2010.

I am one of the few people — perhaps the only one — who successfully fought to keep SDG&E from putting a Smart Meter on my home.  I am quite very familiar with RF (microwave) radiation.  Knowing I am sensitive to it, I became proactive when notified that the smart meter build out was going to start in north county San Diego. I contacted SDG&E and have chronicled each contact I had with SDG&E.  I have a neuro-cardiac problem know as Neuro-Cardiogenic Syncope.  I can pass out without warning, as my brain does not always give my heart the right message.  Anything that interferes with the brain and/or the heart is contraindicated.  RF (microwave) radiation can do both, and therefore this medical reality — as well as that of any and all members of the public who are vulnerable neurologically or with respect to cardiac conditions — must have your greatest attention and concern.  Even though my medical circumstance makes me the proverbial “canary in the coal mine”, I suspect my case serves as a harbinger of what others are experiencing — often unknowingly.  It does not mean they don’t know they are symptomatic, but they do not know — nor do their physicians — that microwaves have been introduced into their 24/7 environment and can affect them neurologically.

As a medical social worker, medical writer, and more relevant to the issue of smart meters — the initiator and organizer of the first brain study ever done of firefighters who have lived/worked with a cell tower on their station for over 5 years, I am well equipped to understand some of the risks inherent in exposing people 24/7 to RF (microwave) radiation.

The cell tower beaming across the working/sleeping quarters of the fire station where our test subjects came from emitted the same type of radiation as smart meters.  RF Radiation is truly a euphemism.  The radiation from smart meters and cell towers is actually microwave radiation.  It has the ability to penetrate every living cell — plant, animal, and human.  It is not innocuous, as some of the CCST report contributors suggest.

Of the 6 firefighters who underwent SPECT scans of the brain, and TOVA testing for neurological measurement of reaction time, impulse control, and decision making, we found abnormalities in all 6 firefighters.  Why is this so significant?  Our firefighters are the strongest of the strong among us.  They must pass rigorous physical and cognitive testing before being accepted into the fire department of any city.  The men we tested were no exception.  To see hyper-excitability of the neurons when the firefighters were off duty and in repose was extremely disconcerting.  Dr. Gunnar Heuser and I are writing a paper with Dr. Olle Johannson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden in hopes the lessons learned in this study can be applied universally.

Additionally, all 6 firefighters showed neurological deficits in the areas of decision making, impulse control, and reaction time.  Think of that.  These men are our first responders.  By placing cell towers on fire stations the cities are earning rental income paid by the telecommunications industry, yet we are quite literally placing our citizens at risk if our first responders are not functioning at their optimal level.  And from a humanitarian perspective, we have an even greater responsibility to protect the men and women who would sacrifice their lives for ours, and indeed have, as this nation and the entire world witnessed on 9/11 and on other occasions.

Let’s extrapolate and apply that thinking to homes with smart meters emitting bursts of RF (microwave) radiation every minute — I have heard every 10 to 23 seconds.  I think Cindy Sage is a better one to check with on what she has found with respect to the pulsed emissions of microwave radiation.   We are subjecting the unborn, young children with developing brains, women, the elderly, and those with pre-existing health conditions all of whom are much more likely to be predisposed than strong, healthy firefighters to adverse reactions to these bursts of RF (microwave) radiation.  Yet if we found abnormalities in the firefighters after their 5 years of exposure to a cell tower, what about all those who are even more likely to sustain harm from RF radiation emitted by smart meters 24/7?  From a humanitarian perspective, we have an obligation and a duty to protect those who cannot speak for themselves.  If we have knowledge that would protect the defenseless, and the defenseless would include those without full knowledge of the potential detrimental effects of RF (microwave) radiation, we must act on it.

Why is RF (microwave) radiation such a risk to the population at large? Let’s first consider the brain as “the seat of the soul” and the central switchboard for all that happens in our bodies. The brain is the first organ to be adversely affected by this type of radiation.  Neurological functions of the brain include but are not limited to the following:

• sleep disturbances — inability to sleep/inability to wake up with clear thinking
• headaches
• disorientation
• mood disturbances
• inability to concentrate
• poor impulse control
• delayed reaction time
• tinnitus

I know I, an adult with a fully formed blood brain-barrier (or BBB) — the covering around the brain that is supposed to protect our brains from chemicals entering and damaging the body’s most critical organ, must be extremely careful around RF radiation because my brain stem does not always give the right signals to my heart.  How does RF radiation directly affect my brain when the BBB is intact?  That is because RF radiation crosses the BBB, and that is dangerous.  In fact, RF radiation has been shown to disrupt the development of the BBB, and since the absolutely essential BBB is not fully formed until early adulthood, what in the world are we doing to the unborn and to our children and our teens by exposing them to rapid bursts of pulsed microwave radiation?  All this for the sake of progress in the energy arena?

I suggest we get our best minds to work on trying to calculate the astounding expenses from the potential health costs of neurological and immunological impairment in literally millions of residents in smart metered-homes in the coming years.  Why do I also say immunological?  The central nervous system and the immune systems are the two systems of the body that interact most closely.  When one is damaged, the other is at risk.  I would suggest that the CCST tap the services of Berkeley scientist Lloyd Morgan, and perhaps Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director, Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California Berkeley, to discuss the actuarial work that should be undertaken to calculate the potential costs to society, to our health care system, to the utility companies, to all the manufacturers of smart meters, and to all those who have given a “pass” to this technology without truly delving into the potential risk particularly to the developing fetus and young children.

I am a fortunate woman, and the vast majority of the population lack the knowledge I have or the ability to express medically what is happening to them. They are unaware of the cause and effect of being exposed to microwave radiation 24/7, and their physicians will initially misdiagnose them.  I am fortunate because I have early warning signals that tell me what I must avoid, I was blessed to have an education that has allowed me to help others and hopefully to protect others from harm, I have the means to move away from a neighborhood that is so filled with smart meters that even living in a home without one does not afford me a decent night’s sleep, and I am tenacious when I need to be to protect my family, myself and others.

I had to use that tenacity in dealing with SDG&E, as well as patience — and I am writing in part to tell the CCST you must advocate an “opt out” opportunity for utility consumers, allowing them wired smart meters rather than wireless.  It was almost impossible for me to force SDG&E to not install a smart meter on my home.  This technology is so new, and was rushed to market, such that I had to educate my cardiologist who had never heard of a smart meter before.  Most still have not. I had to educate SDG&E employees.  I had to ultimately tell SDG&E I would hold them legally responsible for any harm that came to me if a smart meter was installed on my home.  With the “false comparisons” offered by SDG&E regarding the supposed-safety of their smart meters, I had to do copious research to assert my right given my critical medical need NOT to have a smart meter on my home.  It should not be this complicated.  I fear we have jumped into this new technology with great fervor — in part for energy conservation and in part as a stimulus to the economy.  But are we as a nation trying to fit a square peg into a round hole?

One SDG&E executive employee told me, “We are new at this.  It is still sort of an experiment.”  Sort of an experiment? That is a frightening statement when you consider smart meters expose a family 24/7 to microwave radiation. That same individual asked me why so many people with pacemakers were calling her office and expressing concern.  She had assured them there would be no problem, and I was stunned to hear this.  Supposedly some pacemakers are now better shielded to not beat irregularly in the presence of RF radiation, but who knows which pacemakers are shielded, which ones aren’t, and as Cindy Sage points out in her extensive report, no one is monitoring the total cumulative load of RF radiation any home or any one person is being exposed to.  The SDG&E employee asked me, the consumer, what could happen to a person with a pacemaker if the smart meter happened to adversely affect them.

My answer to the SDG&E employee was very simple. “They could die.”  Is it likely?  Perhaps not.  Is it possible. Absolutely.  I told the SDG&E employee she had a moral obligation to find those individuals with pacemakers and offer them the opportunity I was insisting on — NO smart meter.  To my knowledge, I am still the only person in SDG&E territory who does not have a smart meter on my home.  To what level of negligence this rises, I do not know.  That is not an area I have expertise in.  I have, however, shared my relevant expertise about health issues and our discoveries with the firefighters, and I do hope you will listen earnestly.

The firefighters listened.  I took our study results from the testing of the 6 firefighters, wrote a resolution, and with the help of an international coalition of experts and firefighters including Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario and Janet Newton of the EMR Policy Institute, we took what is now known as Resolution 15 to the International Association of Firefighters conference held in Boston in August 2004. By an 80% majority, the firefighters passed Res. 15 calling for the spirit of a moratorium on placing cell towers on fire stations throughout the US and Canada pending further study.  I say the “spirit” of a moratorium because it is still trumped by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and until legislative changes take place in the US, and a much-needed health consciousness arises about the need for safer communication through fiber optics as opposed to the proliferation of RF-emitting devices, we are playing Russian Roulette with our future, our children’s future, and their progeny, as well.

Thank you for your time, and consideration.

Respectfully,

SUSAN FOSTER, MSW
15957 Avenida Calma
Rancho Santa Fe CA 92091
susan.foster1004@cox.net
(858) 756-3532

ATT: NYT.com
January 14, 2011- Calif. Agency Mulls ‘Opt Out’ or Wired Substitutes as Fallout Over Smart Meters Persists
By COLIN SULLIVAN AND DEBRA KAHN

cc: Gov. Jerry Brown
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom
Assemblyman Jared Huffman
New York Times
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Barbara Boxer
Matthew Lucks, MD
Frederick De La Vega, MD
Gunnar Heuser, MD, PhD
Olle Johanson, MD, Karolinska Institute, Sweden