Life Energies

Map of cell towers/antennas near you

sarjuna@aol.com (Shivani) — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:36:18 -0700

At the Antenna Search site, you can type in any address in the US and they will tell you where all the cell towers and antennas are within an 8 mile radius, as well as where future towers will soon be placed.

http://www.antennasearch.com/

Continue reading "Map of cell towers/antennas near you"

Dirty electricity raising your electric bill?

sarjuna@aol.com (Shivani) — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:29:54 -0700

When I first became interested in the health effects of electrical pollution, power quality expert Dave Stetzer did an independent test of our electrical power quality, and we found that our utility was delivering electricity containing 11,000% more electrical pollution than is allowable by state code. When I discussed this with our next-door neighbors, we learned that they had been receiving absurd electric bills, for way more electricity than they could possibly be using in their home, but the utility company was insisting that they pay the bills. Both they and we were complaining vehemently to the utility company.

Suddenly, the level of electrical pollution in our neighborhood went down to just about half of what it had been. We will never know for sure why. However, at that very time our neighbors' electric bells became normal. Dave Stetzer explained that high frequencies make disc type electric meters spin faster, making it appear that more electricity has been used than actually has.

The August 1999 special issue of the Wisconsin Agriculturist was devoted to the issue of electrical pollution, and included some information about this issue of meters being affected:

If there's harmonic distortion on your farm and you have a disk-type electric meter, you may be paying more for your trouble than you think - literally.

In 1996, John Beyerl, Colby, "isolated" his farm from the utility lines, an option selected by many farmers dealing with "stray voltage.'" The procedure can be effective if "dirty'" current is entering the farm from utility neutrals, but not if it's entering via the earth. [Which the utilities are now using to return 70+% of the current to their substations.]

In Beryl's case, it didn't work, but his electric bill declined by nearly two-thirds. ...."It's simple. It's harmonics," Dave Stetzer told Beryl - the higher the frequency, the faster the meter turns, unless it's a digital meter.

August Hegg, Jr., Unity, who has "stray voltage" problems on his farm, says his monthly electric bill decreased by $400 to $500 when NSP installed a digital meter.

Now Dave Stetzer and Magda Havas have written an article, "High electricity costs and cell phone antennas: Is there a connection?" in which they discuss the effect of nearby cell towers/antennas on resident's electric bills.

Following are edited excerpts. You can read the entire article at:

www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/electicity_costs_antennas.pdf

Larry and Susan Stankaviches of Duanesburg, NY began to experience ill health after a cell phone tower was erected in their neighborhood in the late 1990s. Radio frequency radiation in their home fluctuates and relates to poor health, severe headaches and elevated blood sugar levels for Susan, who has type 2 diabetes, and sleep difficulties for both Susan and Larry. There are now three cell phone antennae within1700 feet of their home, which is on a hill in direct line with the antennae. Shortly after the most recent cell phone antennas were activated the Stankavichs noticed their electricity bills were higher than normal.

In 2002 and 2003 the annual electricity expenses were similar, around $1,400. In 2004 the annual electricity bill increased by $1,000 to $2,400 (70% increase). No major changes in electricity use during 2004 could explain this increase. The increase in their December 2004 electricity coincided with the installation of another set of cell phone antennas within 600 meters of their home. The monthly bills remained high until April 2005, when Larry Stankavich installed high frequency filters.

The most likely explanation is that the meter read inaccurately due to the high frequencies put on the line from the equipment at the base of the cell towers and not due to the broadcast signals.

With the many cell phone antennas that are dotting the landscape, the degree to which they interfere with hour-watt meters and contribute to inaccurate readings and high electricity costs needs further examination. If this is indeed a wide-spread phenomena we recommend the following actions be taken:
1. The Cell Phone Provider needs to filter their equipment to minimize radio frequencies on
electrical wires.
2. The Electricity Provider needs to ensure that their meters are measuring electricity use
accurately.
3. The Electricity Consumer needs to be compensated for any errors in the amount of electricity they have been billed for but not used.

NOTE: The local electricity provider replaced the new radio frequency (RF) Hr-W meter that could be read remotely from the road with the original mechanical Hr-W meter that recorded monthly electricity use.
Many electrically-sensitive individuals experience severe symptoms when one of these RF-producing "smart" meters is attached to their home by a utility company, and have requested that the new meter be removed and replaced with the original mechanical one, upon which the new symptoms disappear.

Dirty electricity common in schools

sarjuna@aol.com (Shivani) — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:48:51 -0700

The LaCross Tribune has begun a series of articles on dirty electricity. Below is an excerpt from the first article.

Researcher: Dirty electricity common in schools
By TERRY RINDFLEISCH / La Crosse Tribune
Published - Sunday, December 10, 2006

Some teachers and parents are convinced that dirty electricity could be the
reason their schools have sick building syndrome.

Schools are tested for asbestos and other chemicals when a group of teachers
or students get sick, but they are rarely tested for dirty electricity.

Magda Havas, a professor in environmental and resource studies at Canada¹s
Trent University, said dirty electricity is a power quality problem that
likely is present in most schools due to fluorescent lights, computers and
other electronic equipment that generate electrical pollution.

Havas was asked to conduct a study in a Toronto private school for students
with learning disabilities and found high levels of dirty electricity.

³I was unaware of studies showing dirty electricity was harmful to human
health, and I was skeptical that filters would do anything,² Havas said.
³But after filtering the school, the health of teachers and students
improved to my surprise. Student behavior improved especially in those with
attention deficit disorder.²

.... ³I am convinced that dirty electricity is contributing to the ill health of
staff and students,² Havas said. ³Elementary-aged students are the most
sensitive, and that this form of pollution may be significantly compromising
the learning and working environment in schools.²

Click here to read the entire article.

As the article quotes comments made by the principal of the Bangor school regarding the results of filtering that are quite atypical, I contacted Dr. Havas and requested her comment. She has responded:

"Yes, Dave Stetzer and I visited Bangor school and spoke with the
Principal and some of the teachers who were electrically sensitive. I
offered to do a study at the school and I was told they were quite
receptive to the idea but needed to take it to their Board for
approval. We had a time limit for the study since I had teaching in
the fall and much less flexible time to travel to Wisconsin. They
delayed for a considerable period and the next thing I heard is that
they had already installed the filters in the school.

No one ever contacted me about any of this and I just assumed they didn't want to
do the study. I was then told, during an interview on the radio, that
I had offered but refused to do a study at Bangor school. This is
totally absurd. On the radio I mentioned to the person, that I was
disappointed when I learned they had installed the filters but that I
would still be willing to do the study but he said he had no
authority. I have not been contacted by anyone at Bangor school about
any of this. That is my recollection of the incident."

Second-Hand Cell Phone Radiation

sarjuna@aol.com (Shivani) — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:10:39 -0700

Following are excerpts from "On Second-Hand RF Radiation" by former Motorola senior research scientist and technical staff member, Robert C. Kane, Ph.D.

"Radiofrequency
radiation emissions from cellular towers and handsets hold the
potential for increased incidence of long-term medical effects, but of
equal importance are the immediate effects of exposure to the radiation.

Unlike
second-hand cigarette or cigar smoke, exposure to which has been linked
to life threatening and debilitating diseases, radiofrequency radiation
exposure has, to date, successfully avoided the issue of passive
personal exposure.

But, in fact, recent research has demonstrated
that even short-term exposure to radiation power densities emanating
from a nearby cellular telephone is sufficient to modify brainwave
patterns, affect short-term memory, and modify an individual's ability
to perform physical tasks such as driving an automobile.

Radiation
emanating from a portable cellular telephone... propagates through the
entire environment surrounding the radiating antenna of the phone.
....every time someone in an automobile next to you activates his
cellular phone or whenever someone at a nearby table in a restaurant at
which you are having lunch activates her phone your brain is being
radiated.

The issue of secondhand tobacco smoke might have been
resolved many years ago if adequate research had been performed to
support the complaints of objecting parties. In the instance of
radiofrequency radiation the research has already been completed. The
body of available research indicates that operation of a nearby
portable cellular telephone will expose a non-user to radiation, some
of which will be deposited into the brain of the non-user, at levels
higher than necessary to elicit undesirable biological effects even
though the phone may be more then ten feet away from the non-user.

....after
that cellular phone user leaves the scene he leaves behind, within the
brain ofeach and every nearby person, the residual effects and damage.
These are effects and damage known to the scientific community but not
acknowledged by the industry placing their products into the commercial
stream."

Please be aware that the
exposure is increased when a cell phone is used inside a metal
structure, such as an elevator or a vehicle, that reflects the
radiation back into the occupied area.

I now carry an Electrosmog Detector with
me, which I turn on if someone begins to expose me to the radiation
from their cellphone. As the Detector lets you "hear" the radiation,
this gets the cell-phone user's attention right away. I look the person
in the eye and say "That is the radiation from your phone, to which I
am being exposed." The caller's eyes usually get big and round, and
they tend to move away from me rapidly.

The
first time my husband was present when I did this, in the vegetable
section of our natural foods co-op, he was embarrassed. I said "Why
should I meekly allow someone to expose me to radiation?" and he got
it.

Of course, there are some
situations in which one would probably not want to do this. If I were
in a "rough," sparsely-populated area, I'd probably just hustle away,
myself.

More dirt on Repacholi & the W.H.O.

sarjuna@aol.com (Shivani) — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:25:36 -0700

The actions of Dr. Mike Repacholi while he was head of the World Health Organization EMF project merited a section on my Web site entitled Corruption at the W.H.O.

In August of 2006 Repacholi moved on from W.H.O. and is now a industry consultant for Connecticut Light and Power Company, with the job of helping steer the Connecticut Siting Council away from a strict EMF exposure standard. The two utilities owning the Company commissioned Repacholi to prepare detailed comments to rebut the state Department of Public Health and support a 100 mG exposure level.

This in spite of the fact that:

- Children exposed to 2 mG have a threefold increase in risk and those exposed to 3 mG have a fourfold increase in the risk of leukemia.

- There is a five-fold increase in the risk of childhood leukemia, lymphomas and brain tumours where children living near power lines are exposed to 4 mG.

- A 12 mG magnetic field can block the protective action of melatonin against the growth of cancer cells. (Confirmed by 4 independent studies.)

- 12 mG magnetic fields can block the growth inhibition of tamoxifen, a drug used to control breast cancer

- Dr. Neil Cherry, whose impeccable work is renowned, concluded that "Every person is at risk of neurological effect from living, working or going to school in fields of 0.2 mG or more."

New information has also emerged indicating that the WHO EMF project has been receiving even more industry support than previously acknowledged.

Repacholi is now using the materials he prepared at the W.H.O. with industry money to support industry's policy positions. A wonderful deal for industry. A terrible deal for you and your children.

Please read the Microwave News story for the complete details.

And please send Microwave News a donation so that Dr. Slesin can continue to keep us informed about what's going on behind the scenes.

Bias in Health Advisory Committees

sarjuna@aol.com (Shivani) — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:52:51 -0700

Bias in Health Advisory Committees

Monday, November 6. 2006

www.emfacts.com/papers/who_conflict.pdf

Independent researchers and informed/concerned individuals around the
world are ever more aghast regarding the fact that the international
organizations charged with setting standards to protect public health
are instead acting to protect the industries creating what the public
needs protection from.

Don Maisch has written an excellent
paper that briefly examines recent actions taken by the World Health
Organisations (WHO) International EMF Project and the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

He concludes that:

"When it comes to non-ionizing
radiation issues (in this case for power
frequency health risk assessment) the evidence
is clear that Michael Repacholi has used his
standing in both WHO and ICNIRP to stack
the WHOs Environmental Health Criteria
Task Group for power frequency exposures
with representatives of the power industry in
contravention of WHO policy.

This action can only be construed as
being aimed at ensuring that industry
involvement in determining the WHO
Environmental Health Criteria will bias
ICNIRPs risk assessment for power frequency
exposure limits for years to come. This will
conveniently provide economic protection for
the industry against the need to spend
enormous sums of money on upgrading
distribution systems as well as risks of
litigation. Such a blatant disregard for the
fundamental principles of credible science, as
well as WHOs mission on protecting world
health, speaks of a desperation to bury
independent science at all costs, even if that
cost is the integrity of WHO."

Please read the entire paper, Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees:. A case study of the WHOs EMF Task Group, by Don Maisch, for the details on the dirty deeds being done by those charged with protecting your health.
This paper can be found at: www.emfacts.com/papers/who_conflict.pdf

Posted by shivani
in Politics
at
14:45

| Comments (0)

| Trackbacks (0)

Dr. Havas' response to Health Canada "test"

sarjuna@aol.com (Shivani) — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:09:05 -0700

I've been unable to post to the blog for some time because of technical problems, which have just been solved. So, here we go again.

Dr. Magda Havas of the Dept. of Environmental & Resource Studies at Trent University, Ontario, has done some great studies regarding the health improvement people experience when Graham Stetzer filters are used to remove the electrical pollution from their living environment. (This one, for example.)

Earlier this year, Dr. Havas was a guest on a number of Canadian TV and radio programs, which resulted in increased public awareness of the electrical pollution issue, as well as interest in the filters.

Very likely as a result of this, Health Canada did some so-called tests of the filters, and wrote up a so-called "report". This is such a poor piece of work that I can only say it is wonderful that Health Canada and their electrical-industry friends find themselves so threatened by a bit of public awareness that they have to resort to such absurdity.

I will be posting several pieces about this. Below, for starters, is Dr. Havas' letter to Health Canada, minus a chart that I am unable to reproduce.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Open letter to Health Canada
Response to: Evaluation of the Stetzer Filters1
October 10, 2006

The Honorable Tony Clement,
Minister of Health,

Health Canada.clement.j@parl.gc.ca

I raise a serious concern about a document1 written by six scientists at Health Canadas Consumer and Clinical Protection Bureau that was recently posted on the BC Centre for Disease Control2 web site. The Health Canada scientists purport to test the effectiveness of the Graham/Stetzer filters to reduce dirty electricity. This document does not appear on the Health Canada web site and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Had it been peer reviewed it would not have been accepted for the obvious errors I mention below. This document is more concerned in protecting the electric utility than it is in protecting the health of Canadians. It surprises me that Health Canada would approve release of this document with so many fundamental errors.

It is my understanding that this document has been circulated widely yet the Health Canada authors did not have the courtesy to send a copy of their report to the designers of this filter, Professor Martin Graham (UC Berkeley) and Mr. Dave Stetzer (President of Stetzer Electric).
I ask you to look into this matter. Dave Stetzer has agreed to demonstrate how the filters work using appropriate equipment and I ask you to encourage your scientists at Health Canada to take him up on his offer.

What follows is my evaluation of and response to the Health Canada document 1.

Sincerely,
Magda Hava

Many products are now available to help people who suffer from exposure to electromagnetic energy and it is right for Health Canada to take these claims seriously and to test the products to see if they do indeed accomplish what they claim. Obviously this is what Health Canada had in mind when they decided to test the GS filters. I applaud them for this but am deeply disturbed by some of the fundamental errors they made during the testing of these filters and in the flawed document they produced.

Health Canada used equipment that neither had the appropriate range of frequencies nor had the needed sensitivity to test the GS filters? Health Canada inappropriately applied equations intended for linear loads to non-linear loads? Health Canada claimed that the GS filters produce dirty electricity that may be harmful to human health when they previously denied any harmful effects of dirty electricity? Health Canada seems more concerned about the impact these filters might have on the electricity providers rather than the impact dirty electricity might have on the health of Canadians, as their name implies?

This open letter is intended to set the record straight and to offer Health Canada a demonstration of what the GS filters do using appropriate equipment. I will deal with some of the more blatant errors in the Health Canada document and try to keep it as concise and non-technical as possible so that others will see what Health Canada has done or failed to do.
I understand that Dr. Don Hillman (Michigan State University) responded earlier this year to statements made in this document concerning biological effects of dirty electricity and that Dr. Martin Graham (UC Berkeley) plans to respond to the electrical engineering aspects based on the Health Canada study design and execution.

1. The GS filters remove dirty electricity within the frequency range of 4 to 100 kHz (4,000 and 100,000 cycles per second) and their ability to reduce microsurges above and below this range falls off rapidly. This was clearly stated in the Havas and Stetzer (2004) document cited by Health Canada.

So why did Health Canada use equipment that covered the range of 50 Hz to 5 kHz? There was an overlap of 1 kHz and this tested 1% of the effective frequency range of the filters. Clearly inappropriate instrumentation was used and hence Health Canada can make no claims as to whether or not the filters work because they were unable to test the filters properly. This alone makes the entire document worthless as a test of the effectiveness of the GS filters to reduce dirty electricity in the 4 to 100 kHz frequency range (Figure 1).

2. The dirty electricity rides on top of the 60 Hz sine wave yet Health Canada made no attempt to separate the 60 Hz cycle from the high frequencies. They could have used a ubiquitous filter and thus had more accuracy for the higher frequencies for at least 1 kHz of the overlap between the instrumentation and the filters effective range.

Health Canada admits their equipment did not have the appropriate sensitivity because, when the GS filter was plugged in, the microsurge meter measured reductions in dirty electricity that their equipment failed to detect.

3. Health Canada states that the filters have no effect at low frequencies in reducing harmonics. They provide evidence of this up to the 7th harmonic or 420 Hz. No one ever claimed the GS filters worked at these low frequencies. They work for the frequency range of 4,000 to 100,000 Hz and 420 Hz is not within that range. This is a red herring meant to discredit the filters by stating they dont work but for a frequency range they were not intended for. This lower frequency has less energy and is less likely to be as biologically active as higher frequencies (Riley 1998). See Item 5 below.

4. Health Canada erroneously claims that low levels of dirty electricity have no biological effects, but they provide no documentation to support their claim.
Studies show that people who have multiple sclerosis, type 1 and type 2 diabetics, chronic fatigue, tinnitus, and symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity have benefited when the filters were used to clean up their home or work environment (Havas and Stetzer 2004). We have empirical evidence that these filters work both in the sense of reducing dirty electricity and improving health.

Diabetics had lower fasting glucose levels and required less insulin. Our studies with diabetics were independently replicated in Japan with similar results. According to Health Canada an estimated two million Canadians have diabetes and the cost of diabetes in Canada is estimated to be up to $9 billion annually. If even a small percentage of these diabetics could benefit by cleaning up the dirty electricity in their home/work/school environment, the savings in health care could be considerable.

Multiple sclerosis patients had reduced tremors and some were able to walk unassisted within a few days to weeks after filters were installed in their homes. No other changes were made in their diet or medication during this period to account for these changes. We have video-documented evidence of these improvements. How does Health Canada explain this and what evidence do they have to the contrary to support the claims that dirty electricity is not biological active?

According to the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (2002) Canada has one of the highest rates of MS in the world. An estimated 50,000 Canadians have MS and 70% of people with MS are unable to work 5-10 years after they are diagnosed. A number of people with MS who have used the GS Filters were able to continue work or return to work after they reduced the dirty electricity in their home/work environment. Their improved quality of life, the reduced stress on family members, and their ability to remain productive members of society should be of enormous interest to Health Canada.

5. Health Canada claims that the GS filters produce dirty electricity at the low frequency range and that this dirty electricity may be harmful. How can they argue it both ways? At first they claim that the levels of dirty electricity are so low that they are not biologically active and then they claim that the filters produce low levels of dirty electricity that are harmful to health.

Energy is related to frequency and the higher the frequency the greater the energy. Sixty kHz (60,000 Hz) has 1000 times more energy than 60 Hz. Also, frequencies above 1.7 kHz begin to penetrate the body (Riley 1998). Yet Health Canada claims that the lower frequencies, purportedly generated by the GS filters, have a greater biological effect with less energy and less penetrating power. This is contrary to logic. Dr. Don Hillman addresses this in greater detail in his letter to Health Canada sent earlier this year (2006).

6. Health Canada claims that the filters would increase our demand for electricity requiring more transmission facilities. The electricity provider will have additional transmission losses due to the continuous nature of this load in their distribution lines and transformers. However, if manufacturers of electronic equipment properly filtered their equipment and if the utility distributed clean electricity these filters would not be necessary.

Poor Power Quality

Dirty electricity is a serious utility concern. It costs industry in the United States between 4 and 6 billion dollars each year for dirty power (Fortune, June 5, 1999) and this does not include the health costs.

Industry has long recognized this and they use large capacitors (filters) because they require clean electricity for proper functioning of their equipment. Power surges are costly if they stop production and damage equipment. Surge suppressors are used in homes and offices to protect computers and other sensitive equipment for the same reason.

The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) has long recognized the problems associated with spurious radio frequencies (RF) and the electric utilities have filters to mitigate this problem, although they tend not to use them as often as they should (see Ontario Hydros own document, Power Quality Reference Guide (1998).

According to the IEEE 519-1992, Since most electronic equipment is located at a low voltage level of is associated power distribution system, it is frequently exposed to the effects of voltage notching. Voltage notches frequently introduce frequencies, both harmonic and nonharmonic, that are much higher than normally exhibited in 5 kV and higher voltage distribution systems. These frequencies can be in the radio frequency (RF) range, and as such, can introduce harmful effects associated with spurious RF (page 39).

Poor power quality is a serious problem and both industry and the utilities have filters to improve power quality. Now a filter that plugs into an outlet and doesnt require an electrician has been designed for the home. The GS filter is a smaller version of the capacitors used by industry. The GS filter protects equipment from power surges and research shows that it helps people who are sensitive to this form of energy (Havas and Stetzer 2004). Surely the novel information here is not that a filter can reduce dirty electricity but that dirty electricity affects health. Isnt this what Health Canada should be testing?

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

People, who are genuinely suffering from what they describe as electrical hypersensitivity (EHS)3, contact me from all over North America. We have been able to help a few of those individuals who have participated in studies. Countless others have also benefited from the filters. They cant all be wrong. I encourage Health Canada to test the health claims we make in our studies because that is what is of primary importance.

3 The World Health Organization (2004) describes electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) as: . . . a phenomenon where individuals experience adverse health effects while using or being in the vicinity of devices emanating electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Whatever its cause, EHS is a real and sometimes a debilitating problem for the affected persons . . .

Estimates show that 3% of the population has electrical hypersensitivity (EHS) and that an addition 35% have symptoms of EHS (Philips and Philips 2006). That range accounts for between 980,000 and 11 million Canadians who may be adversely affected by electromagnetic pollution in its various forms. So this is potentially a very serious health concern in Canada.

Dirty electricity is ubiquitous and getting worse because of the electronic equipment we use and because of the inadequacy of some of our power lines. Eventually the utility will have to deal with this pollutant and we hope it will be sooner rather than later so that fewer lives will be destroyed because of the insensitivity of the industry and their failure to adhere to their own guidelines.

Health Canada should take a more proactive role in dealing with electromagnetic pollution and electrical hypersensitivity by informing doctors about the symptoms of EHS, testing the products that claim to work, establishing monitoring programs for electromagnetic pollution in schools and elsewhere, and providing Canadians with solutions through legislation to ensure that our environment is as clean, safe, and healthy as possible.

An offer to demonstrate how the filters work

Dave Stetzer, one of the co-inventors of the GS filter, would be willing to demonstrate to Health Canada how the filters work using the appropriate equipment. He makes this offer because it is important for Health Canada to be aware of the seriousness of this problem and to understand how the filters work, especially if they later decide to do some studies with human subjects.

I look foreword to a favorable response to Dave Stetzers offer because I assume that we are
interested in the same thing--the health of Canadians.

References

IEEE 1992. IEEE Recommended Practices and Requirements for Harmonic Control in Electrical Power Systems. Sponsors: Transmission and distribution committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society and Static Power Converter Committee of the IEE Industry Applications Society; Approved June 18, 1992 IEEE Standards Board; Approved January 4, 1993 American National Standards Institute.

Gajda, G., A. Thansandote, E. Lemay, D. Lecuyer, W. Gorman, and J. McNamee. 2006. Report on Evaluation of Stetzer Filters Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau, Health Canada. available at: www.bccdc.org/content.php?.item=62

Havas M and Stetzer D. 2004. Dirty Electricity and Electrical Hypersensitivity: Five Case Studies, World Health Organization Workshop on Electrical Hypersensitivity, 25-26 October, Prague, Czech Republic.

Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. 2002. On The Path to a Cure: From Diagnosis to Chronic Disease Management Brief Submitted to the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, March 2002, 7 pp http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca

Ontario Hydro. 1998. Power Quality Reference Guide, 3rd Edition, Ontario Hydro.

Philips A and Philips J. 2006. The Power Watch Handbook. Piatkus Books Ltd., London. 294 pp.

Reilly, J.P. 1998. Applied Bioelectricity. Springer-Verlag, NY, 561 pp.

Stahlkopf, Karl. 1999. Cost of Dirty Power. Fortune, June 5, 1999.

The Cult of Negative Results

sarjuna.les@gmail.com (Sarjuna) — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:59:20 -0700

Dr. Lous Slesin, creator of the excellent Microwave News Web site, and a marvelous sleuth, has recently written the following. You can download the entire report on this shady business from his home page.

Continue reading "The Cult of Negative Results"

Electrohypersensitivity conference avail. on DVD

sarjuna@aol.com (Shivani) — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:46:54 -0700

I have just received the following message:

A unique conference was recently held in Stockholm in May, 2006.

The theme for the conference was "The right for persons with the impairment
electrohypersensitivity to live in a fully accessible society". The
conference was organized by the Stockholm City municipality and the
Stockholm County Council and dealt with the most recent measures to make
Stockholm fully accessible for persons with the impairment
electrohypersensitivity. Among such measures are to offer home equipment
adjustments, ban mobile phones from certain underground cars as well as
certain public bus seats, and through electrosanitized hospital wards.

The conference was documented on film. It has now been translated into
English and made available on a double-DVD. It is sold and distributed by
the Stockholm City. The prize (incl. postage) is 25 euro. An invoice will
be sent out after you have received the DVD.

To order the DVD - and for questions regarding the conference - please,
contact Mr. Johan Bonander at Stockholm City's Social Welfare
Administration on the e-mail address <johan.bonander@sot.stockholm.se>, or
call to order your own DVD copy from the conference bureau at the Stockholm
City's Social Welfare Administration on tel. no. +468-508 25 003.

With my very best regards
Yours sincerely
Olle J.

(Olle Johansson, assoc. prof.
The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm
Sweden)

Living by cell phone antennae/towers/masts

sarjuna@aol.com (Shivani) — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:37:23 -0700

Following are excerpts from a Power Watch piece about the effects of living near cell phone antennae/towers/masts. These are the comments of Dr Bill Curry, a USA-based EMF bio-effects expert.

The...symptoms from which Ena Bambrough suffered until her death...sound to me like part of the microwave sickness syndrome [See symptoms of high frequency illness.] that Russian scientists studied over a period of 40 years of observations of people who worked around sources of RF radiation.

...These scientists..stated that the early phases of the syndrome are reversible, but that over time it becomes LETHAL.

.... Having seen a resident of Vienna whose apartment is right across the street from a cell phone antenna installation and whose legs are red as boiled lobsters legs, I am a believer in the deleterious effects of microwave radiation.

Having also witnessed what the radiation has done to people on a scenic ridge in upstate New York that puts them almost on eye-level with directional cell phone antennas on a tower rising from the base of the ridge, my realization that the medical profession will eventually have to acknowledge the existence of RF sickness is strengthened.

.... One lady (in her early forties) on that ridge has suffered internal bleeeding around the periphery of her brain - hemmorhagic stroke....An even younger man on that ridge suffered a stroke at age 39.... On the same ridge, I witnessed people suffering from the blinding headaches and the tinitus that afflicted the late Ena Bambrough in the U.K.

These people...began to notice the symptoms about 6 weeks after the cell tower began operation in early 1997.

...The symptoms were present, when I visited, at radiation levels no higher than 25 microwatts per square centimeter on a day when the residents said the raidiaton was light.

These people often have to sleep in their car miles away from the cell phone tower. At home, they cant sleep on some bad nights. On the same ridge, dogs had come down with tumors and died.

While there undoubtedly is an effect of genetic variability, I am fairly well convinced .... that anyone subjected to microwave radiation on a chronic basis will eventually become electrosensitive.

I know a couple in California who live in the coastal Mendocino Mountains and are apparently affected by scatter or spillover from a Pave Paws radar beam whose source is 150 miles away near Sacramento. The state health department wont touch this issue (because of the Air Forces involvement) and they dismiss it as being impossible because of the distance. In this family, the father and mother have suffered from a variety of illnesses such as those I have previously mentioned, but both children have had forms of cancer. One had leukemia, and the other had a non-malignant brain tumor removed. ...When these people have driven away from home and traveled to the areas that are shadowed from the radar, their symptoms have ceased.

Because our government is so blinded by the absurd notion that only biological heating is important, they completely ignore what pulses do to biological cells....

...I just cannot countenance the official blindness of government institutions that are supposed to protect the populace, but, instead, act as promotional agencies. The FCC and similar organizations in other countries should be split into an agency which promotes the technology and an independent, separately funded agency whose only fucntion is to regulate providers of the technology and to protect the public.

Dr. Havas' meets the Graham/Stetzer filters

sarjuna@aol.com (Shivani) — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:06:09 -0700

Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University has done several excellent studies regarding the health effects of dirty electricity (high frequencies accompanying the 60 Hz. from your electric utility company).

She has written an account of her first experience with the filters. She was skeptical, but open-minded. The results surprised her and launched her into ongoing research.

You can download one of her papers on the resources page of this Web site.

Three new interviews to download.

sarjuna@aol.com (Shivani) — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:28:22 -0700

There are are three new interviews available for download.

Prof. Magda Havas & Dave Stetzer interview 07.27.2006
Dirty electricity may be affecting your health. Joy Cardin's guests say electricity pollution is widespread, but offer ways to deal with the problem.
Guests:
- Dave Stetzer, industrial electrician, and president of Stetzer Electric
- Magda Havas, professor of environmental and resources studies, Trent University, Ontario. She's conducted several studies of the health effects of dirty electricity.
Host is Joy Cardin of Wisconsin Public Radio.
Format: MP3

Dr. Gerald Goldberg interview 07.21.2006
Dr Gerald Goldberg MD talks about health problems associated with microwave exposure, the US healthcare system and the problems we are facing with the unregulated proliferation of microwave transmitters. Host is Lee Stringer of the Progressive Radio Network.
Format: MP3

* Louis Slesin interview 07.11.2006
Louis Slesin of Microwave News speaks to Dr. Layna Berman & Dr. Jeffry Fawcett on the Your Own Health And Fitness program.
Format: MP3

Global Environmental Disruption

sarjuna@aol.com (Shivani) — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:23:30 -0700

   On a recent evening my husband and I sat on wooden benches under the oak trees at the Aldo Leopold Shack near Baraboo, Wisconsin to hear Professor Jonathan Foley, Director of The Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment at the UW-Madison, speak about global environmental disruption. The title of the presentation was: "Tipping Points on Planet Earth: Are We Close to the Edge?" The following is from the notes that I took.

   Dr. Foley pointed out that ours is the first generation to see the world globally. We not only know it's round, we know what's going on all over it. As what is happening to the environment globally is so threatening, he sees this as the most challenging time in human history.

   In the last 50 years, global population has increased from 2.5 to 6 billion. Grain use has increased threefold. Energy use has increased fourfold. Economic activity has increased sevenfold.

   Dr. Foley looked at 5 major areas of environmental transformation:

   1) Land Use.
   - 18 million sq. km are in use to grow crops. This is equal to the area of South America.
   - 34 million sq. km are dedicated to pastureland, the world's largest ecosystem. This is equal to the area of Africa.
   - 3 million sq. km have been covered with concrete.
   - Agriculture uses 1/3 of the world's real estate not covered by ice.
   - Agriculture is, according to Dr. Foley, the biggest environmental problem on the planet.

   2) Water Use
   - A Lake Huron of water is transported and used annually by mankind.
   - We are using 1/2 of all available water.
   - 70% of this water goes to agricultural crops and livestock.

    3) Planetary Chemistry
    - In the past 100 years our use of fossil fuels has changed the earth's atmosphere from 280 ppm (parts per million) of carbon dioxide to 380 ppm.
    - Plants use carbon dioxide, removing it from the air. Some plants thrive on higher levels of CO2, particularly the "opportunistic" species such as ragweed and poison ivy. [I have noted a stunning explosion of problem species on our 3 acre property in Wisconsin this year.]
    - CO2 changes ecosystems. For instance, it makes the oceans acidic. They used to be pH 8.1, but are now pH 7.8. One result of this is that the formation of organite, the material of which coral reefs are made, is interfered with.
    - The runoff of nitrate fertilizers causes hugh "blooms" of ocean plankton. When these sink and decompose, no fish can live in the area.

    4) Biota (regional flora and fauna)
    - For instance, we have introduced invasive species, and created highly resistant viruses.

    5) Climate
    - Our activities are responsible for climate disruption.
    - There is already massive climate disruption in the Arctic
    - We have been warned about climate disruption for over 100 years. TC Chamberlain wrote about it over 120 years ago.
    - 99% of scientists were agreed twenty years ago that the problem was in part or all due to human activities and warranted immediate action.    Now 100 % agreement among ethical scientists that this is so.
    - The industy-hired "skeptics," however, continue to grind out misinformation. 25% of American still doubt that global warming is actually occurring.

    We now know that the above 5 changes interact with each other, in ways that can speed environmental disruption.

    The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else. As snow and ice melt, the darker ground that is exposed absorbs solar heat rather than reflecting it. This speeds the warming process.
    Trees and shrubs are beginning to grow in areas that were previously tundra. They are darker than underlying snow, and absorb heat.
    These processes may double the rate of warming.
    The Arctic is setting a new heat record annually.

    Coral reefs are dying. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere acidifies the oceans. The coral also bleaches faster at higher temperatures. In 50 years there may be no more coral reefs.

    Deforestation causes drier conditions, and thus more fires. Large areas of deforestation change wind patterns. Changed wind patterns can result in lack of rain, making regrowth impossible.
    Species are lost.
    The tropics may get much drier, with more el Nino events or even a permanent el Nino. Several areas are already extremely damaged. Borneo is toast.

    Our modern societies are not good at considering future dangers.   We ignore them till they have bitten us in the proverbial ass.
    A molecule of carbon dioxide lasts 110 years.
    We needed to cut 80% of our CO2 emissions 80 years ago!

    Earth takes 40 to 50 years to warm up from a new heat source. The global warming we are experiencing presently is from our 1956 pollution!
    We have already set 150 to 300 years of global warming into action.
    We may have already lost the Arctic as it has existed, and the coral reefs.
    We have created damage beyond our understanding or our control.

At this point, Dr. Foley realized that the audience was rather depressed, and attempted to cheer us by mentioning what he sees as positive about our times. He pointed out that at this time in human history more people eat well than ever before, more people live in participatory democracies, more people are literate, etcetera.

[This "good news" appeared strikingly anthrocentric to me, and also "culturocentric." I don't imagine it would be very reassuring to the very high percentages of homo sapiens who are malnourished, illiterate or living in totalitarian states. Nor, could they apprehend it, to the polar bears and tropical species who are dying so that we could live in a luxurious fashion for a few decades.

That said, I frankly admire Prof. Foley's choice to look on the bright side and to be optimistic about the future. I do perceive his optimism to be more a matter of choice than the result of weighing the evidence to date. Others spending their working days weighing the same evidence are not so optimistic. However, a positive attitude contributes wonderfully to positive achievement. I mean to emulate him.

Dr. Foley notes that there is a tall wall between our scientists and our Decision Makers. Scientists do their research and lob their information over the wall, hoping that somebody on the other side will catch it in receptive hands and act on it. However, what is on the other side of the wall is a big pile of papers and information that the Decision Makers pay no attention to.

    When we had a chance to ratify the Kyoto Treaty, agreeing to living carbon dioxide emissions, our Senate voted 99% to 0 against it.   The US and Australia were the only countries in the world not to join in the agreement to limit CO2. (However, he pointed out, the Soviet Union joined just to make the US look bad, and have not actually taken any action.)

    Our national political "leaders" are not taking the lead. And G. Bush did not keep his campaign promise to reduce CO2. ("This is called a lie," Dr. Foley pointed out.)
    Fortunately, states and cities are taking independent action and forming their own policies to reduce CO2. Many business leaders also realize the importance of this task.

    Foley ways that in addition to conserving energy and turning to renewables, we will need "clean coal" energy production. He thinks we may need some nuclear energy as well. [What about the future problems there, though?]
    He also thinks some GMOs may be good - plants that can use nitrogen more efficiently.

    Dr. Foley recommends reading Isacc Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, about a wise fellow who set up far-flung think tanks when he realized his civilization faced immanent collapse, so that the civilization could be brought back -1000 years hence.   We should have a 1000 year plan, Foley says.
    Another author he recommends is Barbara Kingsolver.
    [A number of Sheri S. Tepper's speculative fiction books will also provoke a different-persepective look at a number of the issues discussed here. Try The Family Tree, for starters.]

    The idea of a 1000 year plan reminded Dr. Foley of the story about New Oxford College. A building built there in the 14th had immense oak beams in the ceiling, which began to fail recently.   Many options for redoing the ceiling were discussed, all based on the presumption that such huge oaks were no longer available in m odern times. However, it finally occurred to someone to contact the College forester, who replied "Your trees are ready."

    It turned out that when the original building was constructed, the builders knew that eventually, far in the future, the great oak beams would need to be replaced, and the College forester was instructed to plant more trees and tend them until they were needed.

    Whether a second crop of trees has been planted so that several hundred years from now they will be ready when needed, is a question that does not even occur to most people when they hear this story, who just respond with pleased surprise that the present need was met. The audience at the Leopold Shack did wonder, but nobody knew the answer.

    The main point that Prof. Foley made is that the issue of global environmental disruption is at core a moral issue.   Not only are plant and animal species suffering and being destroyed, but already 150,000 people a year are dying as a result of climate change. This is presently happening far away from our eyes - mostly in Africa- but our consumption choices are directly responsible.

    Prof. Foley shared that after his family made lifestyle choices resulting in the household becoming "carbon neutral" (not contributing to CO2 increase), he was talking about it to a friend in Germany who wryly congratulated him for living as people in Germany and many other places already live.

    With no conscious intention on our part, just living the ordinary American lifestyle amounts to chronic contribution to the galloping disruption of our global environment. If we wish to counter this disruption, we must first clean up our own consumption habits, and then inspire others to do likewise.   Without this chain reaction of personal commitment, we cannot hope that our children, and their children, will enjoy a life-sustaining environment.

    And of course the other species have no choice in the matter at all. Their fates depend upon the choices now by Homo sapiens. - You and me!

    A period of Q&A followed the talk, during which the following points were made:

    Prof. Foley does not believe that population growth is an issue that needs much focus. He notes that population growth rates are already decreasing, and expects the global population to level out at about 9 billion by 2045.
    The real problem, he asserts, is not how many people there are, but their patterns of consumption.

    Someone asked Foley's opinion of Al Gore, and he praised him highly, noting that Gore has been deeply committed to the environment for many years, has travelled the globe extensively in his own research efforts, has the equivalent of 3 PhDs in environmental education, and presents the facts with remarkable skill and clarity.

    It was mentioned that the three biggest subsidies at present in the US are roads, prisons and agriculture.

    In response to a question about ethanol, Foley mentioned that switch grass would result in at least 3 times more energy than corn.

    In addition, he believes that solar energy could replace 60% of our fossil fuel use - IF we can break the present political/economic gridlock.

    At this point, I mentioned that there is a 6th area of environmental transformation to be considered, which is interacting with at least some of the 5 he discussed, and shared briefly some information about the greatest environmental change created thus far by humans - the change in the earth's electromagnetic environment, which is affecting animal and human health in extremely negative ways.

    Prof. Foley's first reaction to this was to protest that the effects of EMF/EMR on Earth's life forms is not yet a sure thing, that there is a lot of disagreement concerning this.   "Ah, " I replied, "You have fallen for the PR spin of the hired skeptics you were just talking about." Prof. Foley understood the implications of this immediately, and promised to become informed re. this area of environmental transformation.

    In conclusion, Prof. Foley lamented the fact that our frivolous lifestyle is killing people and destroying our environment, and exhorted us to see the this as a moral issue.

    He suggested that when we spread the word we don't come across as stereotype "environmentalists," who are viewed by a lot of people as "tree huggers," but to talk about morality, and about security.

    Ain't nobody gonna have a secure future without a healthy and sustainable global environment in which to have it.

    Please think deeply on this, and let your consumption choices be guided by commitment to the things that really matter.

    Note: Many environmental groups are touting switching to compact fluorescent bulbs as a great step to take to protect the environment.   Unfortunately, fluorescent bulbs create an extremely unhealthy environment, as they produce high frequencies that interfere severely with the normal processes of living bodies.

    Dr. Magda Havas is presently doing a research project comparing the electrical pollution produced by different brands of CF bulbs, and to determine whether there are any safe brands.   A safe brand would feature a small RF filter built into each bulb.

EMR/EMF mapping

sarjuna@aol.com (Shivani) — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 14:46:21 -0700

Using government-provided information, a UK group has created maps of the EMF and EMR that people are exposed to in the Red Lomes area.

   There are separate maps illustrating exposures from electrical transmissions lines and the various types of communications signal broadcasting towers, which the English call "masts." The last map combines all these exposures, making it clear indeed what an extremely hostile environment these combined exposures create.

   Would you want to live someplace with this kind of exposure?   Perhaps you do!

   If anyone is aware of such mapping done for any portion of the USA, please let me know and I'll post it.

Interview downloads

sarjuna@aol.com (Shivani) — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 08:34:47 -0700

Dave Stetzer, industrial electrician, and Dr. Magda Havas, professor of environmental and resources studies, Trent University, Ontario, discussed the health effects of dirty electricity recently (July 28th, 2006) on the Joy Cardin show of Wisconsin Public Radio.

Download the interview here. If this does not take you directly to the archives of the Joy Cardin show, click on "archives."

More interviews of Dave & Magda and other researchers and activists can be found here at the Mast Victims site.