CELL PHONE WAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Daanyeer]

Source: http://www.thelastoutpost.com/site/1285/default.aspx



.......................“The reason industry doesn’t like it. They don’t want to lose this part of the market. They don’t want to cast doubts,” he said. “They started to publish that ‘he cannot be right because we don’t find that.’ We have published three or four more papers since then, which more or less showed the same thing, but it is the original publication they continue to attack.”


...........Google “cell phone egg” and you’ll call up various reports on how to cook an egg with a cell phone. The consensus on the internet seems to be that the story is a hoax.

......“This is a very cool article, by the way!,” she said. “I just skimmed it and, in essence, they say that they tried the experiment themselves and it is, indeed, possible. You need two old (as in outdated) phones that are from two different service providers, a non-metallic holder for the egg, among other things. And a lot of time. Their egg took 65 minutes to get to the soft-boiled stage but it could be because one of the phones ran out of minutes at some stage.”

6 min 32 sec
www.safewireless.org

The truth of cell phones has been buried by the industry, the health officials and governments. Health effects from radiation exposure is being allowed to continue.

A Message from the Filmmaker:

This movie, “The Cell Phone War”, was produced in 2005, and has brought forth important information previously withheld from consumers.

Because new facts continue to emerge, I am now completing work on a 90-minute cinema movie which will integrate the latest political and scientific evidence from around the world. We expect to release that film in 2007.

In only the past year, scientific knowledge about the mobile phone health problem has doubled, even as efforts to suppress it have increased! Thus, the new film, “The Boiling Frog Principle”, is a dramatic continuation of the messages contained in “The Cell Phone War”. ~Klaus Scheidsteger

If you would rather watch this 6 minute trailer from the documentary, " Cell Phone War ", with your own player, go here.

“Since 1993, scientific studies have continued to accumulate showing that radiation from mobile telephones and other wireless devices is dangerous. The mobile phone industry continues to deny the existence of a problem, and governments around the world continue to sort out both legal and ethical entanglements with the industry that render them impotent in terms of protecting consumers. Now, new science clearly shows that a radio frequency radiation related disease epidemic has begun – the brunt of which will be borne by our children and grandchildren. The Safe Wireless Initiative



is here to empower consumers to protect themselves and their families. Please help us by joining and supporting this most important of causes. We ask for a modest membership fee that allows us to pay for the overhead associated with keeping this program current and useful.”

Dr. George L. Carlo,

Chairman, Science and Public Policy Institute

Can you hear me now? Cell phone hazards to you and society
by Jim Lundstrom


That two-way radio you carry everywhere and call a “cell phone,” what a godsend, right?

What did we ever do without them?

TodayÂ’s cell phone can do just about everything except your laundry, and someone somewhere is certainly working on that.

But where did these things come from? TheyÂ’re as ubiquitous as tattoos. Suddenly everyone has one.

Does anyone find it curious that before the mass marketing of cell phones began in 1984 there was no testing done to determine if there are any potential risks to humans when they hold a radio frequency-emitting device up to their heads for long periods of time?

At first it was just a toy for the wealthy, so who cared about the health implications, but within 10 years, prices on the phones and service plans had dropped to the point where by 1993 15 million cell phones were in use in the United States.

Today there are an estimated 208 million in use domestically and close to 2 billion worldwide.

Globally, there are still new markets to conquer. Domestically, the cell phone industry has been swooping down like vultures on the “tweener market,” 8- to 12-year-olds.

In 2000, an estimated five percent of teenagers owned cell phones. By 2004 that jumped to about a third of kids 11 to 17, resulting in about $2 billion in carrier revenues, or about a quarter of the market.

Analysts expect half of the 11 to 17 group to be armed with cell phones by 2007.

Dr. George Carlo has described the marketing strategies aimed at children as “grotesque,” and says it’s a perfect example of the industry’s institutional arrogance.

He should know because he used to work for the cell phone industry, but now is its most outspoken critic.

In a widely distributed interview for a New Zealand news show in May, Carlo said there are currently 30,000 to 50,000 new cases of brain and eye cancer attributable to cell phone use being diagnosed every year. Based on current epidemiological studies, that number will reach half a million cases by 2010.

“We have never had this kind of impending risk to society,” he said during the interview (attempts to reach Dr. Carlo for this story were unsuccessful, but you can see the interview at:



www.tv3.co.nz/News/tabid/67/articleID/7593/Default.aspx


From 1993 until 2000, Carlo was the handpicked chief scientist in an industry-funded research program, an initiative announced one week after a Florida man appeared on “Larry King Live” to explain why he had filed suit against the cell phone industry for the brain tumor that killed his wife.

In 2001 Carlo chronicled his seven frustrating years running – or trying to run – the $28 million research program in a book called “Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age” that he wrote with journalist Martin Schram.

While the industry said upfront it wanted straight scientific results, to CarloÂ’s disappointment he soon learned that many high-powered people were on hand to put a positive spin on whatever came from the research, even if that meant denying results.

During his time in office, two different research projects found genetic damage in human blood caused by cell phone emissions. Another project found an increased risk of cell phone users suffering from acoustic neuroma, a rare non-cancerous tumor that affects hearing. Another found a breakdown in the blood brain barrier in the brains of rats exposed to radio waves. Four others found evidence of an increased risk of brain tumors among cell phone users. Another found an increased risk of lymphoma with prolonged radio wave exposure.

And the industry sold more phones.

Science, schmience

Since 1973 Dr. Om Gandhi had been quietly publishing the results of his research into the biological effects of electromagnetic energy. He was particularly interested in the absorption rate in human tissue, which is quaintly known as coupling.

“Nobody bothered me,” said the much-honored professor in the department of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

That all changed with the October 1996 issue of the journal IEEE Transactions of Microwave Theory and Techniques, which contained a paper called “Electromagnetic Absorption in the Human Head and Neck for Mobile Telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz,” results of a study conducted by Gandhi and two doctoral students, Gianluca Lazzi, now a professor in the department of electrical and computer engineering at the North Carolina state University in Raleigh, and Cynthia Furse, now a colleague of Gandhi’s at Utah.

“I think Om’s assessment is dead on,” Furse said. “It was quite an eye-opener as a grad student/post doc to be sort of ‘dropped’ into the politics of the situation when we were just doing interesting science. There is still an active debate internationally about the interpretation of the analysis included in that paper on cell phones and children.”

Furse currently works on finding faults in aging aircraft wiring.

“The truly professional way in which Om balanced the research and debates has provided a very valuable basis for me to manage similar challenges in this line of research,” she said.

That 1996 study showed an alarming rate of electromagnetic penetration in the form of radio frequency from cell phones coupling with the brains of children, compared to the already disturbing amount of radiation entering an adultÂ’s brain while using a cell (see accompanying graphic).

“Nobody bothered me all these years until I stumbled onto this,” Gandhi said. “I didn’t know at the time industry was targeting children as the next growth segment. Boy, they really got after me.”

The cell phone industry got after one of the pioneers in the research of electromagnetic fields because he found that the thinner outer ears and skulls of children allow more energy from the cell phone antenna to couple with brain tissue. The industry got him by trying to discredit his work through studies disputing his findings.

“The reason industry doesn’t like it. They don’t want to lose this part of the market. They don’t want to cast doubts,” he said. “They started to publish that ‘he cannot be right because we don’t find that.’ We have published three or four more papers since then, which more or less showed the same thing, but it is the original publication they continue to attack.”

Does anyone else smell tobacco smoke, as in the tobacco industry denying and obfuscating the fact that cigarettes are harmful to the human body?

“One of the papers shows how every millimeter closer (the cell phone is) to the body, increases the coupling to the body,” Gandhi said. “And here we are with a child’s much thinner earlobe and much thinner skull. Every millimeter changes the energy couple to the tissue by 7 to 12 percent.”

Now, what it means for greater coupling in children, or for anyone, for that matter, remains a matter of whose study you choose to believe. U.S. industry studies continue to show no harmful effects from cell phone radiation, whereas European studies, as some pre-industry crackdown studies from the 1990s that were actually funded by the industry, have found everything from nervousness and headaches to brain tumors and even genetic damage as a result of cell phone radiation.

Great Britain has for several years been cautioning against cell phone use by children.

“Unfortunately, there has been very little research on long-term effects of cell phones and radiation,” Gandhi said. “These days, because of the insistence of the European Union, it’s funding all the research in Europe. There is no research being done in the United States at the present time, even though we started this field back in the early 1970s. All of that research has been stopped because of industry.”

Which is a shame, because it appears to be in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires federal agencies to evaluate the effects of their actions on the human environment, and that includes the Federal Communication Commission, which regulates the transmitters and facilities that expose humans to RF energy.

“I am a professor. I have no axe to grind,” Gandhi said, still seemingly baffled by the reception of that paper 10 years ago. “I’ve written over 200 papers. They never objected to anything, but they didn’t like this one. They went out and hired other scientists that they funded to say my research was not correct.”

Despite the spin the cell phone industry tried to put on GandhiÂ’s work, he soldiers on in the interest of science, humanity and truth.

Has latest paper appeared in the July issue of IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, and is titled “Thermal Implications of the New Relaxed IEEE RF Safety Standard for Head Exposures to Cellular Telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz.”

It looks at the relaxed RF exposure standards set by the professional advisory group, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, compared to earlier standards Gandhi helped establish and standards followed by the European Union as established by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

“These days in the committee (that sets the standards), one co-chair is from Motorola (C.K. Chou) and the other is from the Navy, the military-industrial establishment (Dr. John D’Andrea), and they are suddenly loosening their standards. I compared the three standards to show the new standards are out of line. Too loose.”

A social disease

“I threaten to throw them out of the window,” Dr. Gerard Gryzb, a sociology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, said about chirping cell phones in his classroom.

“They really interrupt my flow, and I assume everybody else’s as well. In a sense, somebody answering a phone is the triumph of the individual over the social if that ring disrupts a social event.”

Gryzb has long had an interest in technology and its effect on society, particularly American society.

“There is this sort of residual, if you’re going to be a modern person how can you possibly speak out against any new technology. There’s that strong element in our culture,” he said.

“Just about all technologies that we’ve seen recently, the questions that come up for sociologists, does it build stronger connections, stronger societies, stronger groups within them, or does it tend to individualize?” he said. “Way back in the ’60s, social thinker Phillip Slater said we get up every morning to see what technology has brought us. More often than not, it slaps us in the face, but we’re going to ask what it is anyway. It just doesn’t matter. We’ll take whatever it is. We don’t end up having any real control over it. We don’t have much in the way of social discussion over whether this stuff is good for us or not.”

We may find cell phones and other technology leading us to what he described as “a Balkanization of people.”

“Kids, I guess, really use them that way, maintaining tight little groups of people. You begin to be less and less willing to tolerate the intrusion of anything that is not part of your group,” he said. “Somebody put it this way, ‘Cell phones enabled the creation of virtual walled communities.’ No technologies really have automatic outcomes, predetermined social impacts, but that’s certainly a possibility, that people are using the technology to further wall themselves off from divergent points of view, and in the process becoming less tolerant.”

While cell phone marketing would have the opposite seem true, Grzyb said there is definitely an anti-social element to cell phone usage.

“Another analyst has said, what does it suggest about the connection of people to whatever it is they are a part of, a class,” he said. “It suggests that their connection is so tenuous that if a device makes a noise, they’ll leave the group. Now think about that. It’s really strange. The thing goes off and you are so connected to this group that you leave it in a second, and, not only that, you’ll go further. You’ll annoy the group.

“It’s saying, I’ve got something personal here. I’ve got a personal message that has come in for personal me and whatever we were doing here as a group is secondary. I’m picking up this phone. Or if I’m out in a group of people, they don’t exist. There’s just me and this phone and whatever’s on the other end of it.”

Accidents waiting to happen

Word on the street is that Frank Drews and David Strayer are anti-cell phone.

ThatÂ’s probably because the two University of Utah psychology professors have been collaborating on a series of studies that prove people who talk on cell phones while driving a vehicle are hazards to public safety.

In 2001 a study led them to conclude that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting for drivers as hand-held phones.

In 2003 they determined that cell phone-using drivers suffer from “inattention blindness” caused by being so focused on the conversation they are less able to process visual information.

The researchers also drew attention to their work in 2003 with a preliminary report equating cell-using drivers to drunken drivers. They solidified that initial report last month with a complete study that verified their initial findings on the subject.

“Just like you put yourself and other people at risk when you drive drunk, you put yourself and others at risk when you use a cell phone and drive. The level of impairment is very similar,” Strayer said in a June press release announcing the results of the study.

“I think it’s a very important public safety/public health issue and we need a broader discussion,” Drews said by telephone from his office in Salt Lake City. “I’m not saying we should ban the use of these things while driving. What I wish would happen is that we come to a concept as a society of what we want and what risks we are willing to take and how many deaths we are willing to accept. No one says this publicly – what we are doing is accepting 42,000 lives annually. What is the number of deaths we are willing to accept for allowing this convenience of conversations on the cell phone while driving?

“I think we have to think about these things,” he said. “Unfortunately, a lot of it disappears in the kind of soundbite culture we have right now.”

You can imagine this line of research has not endeared the pair to the cell phone industry and its many supporters.

“Unlike the current myth that myself and my colleague are against cell phones, that we are biased, we actually started because we were really interested in the question of how new technology had an impact on everyday performance, and cell phones are the newest technology,” Drews said. “They’re a great technology. They can be extremely helpful in emergency situations and have saved lives There’s no doubt about that.

“Of course, we had an idea that certain activities, when performed simultaneously, cause problems. We basically thought use of cell phones might be such a case.”

These guys werenÂ’t out to attack the flagrant misuse of cell phones. They were more interested in the theoretical aspects of attention during multi-tasking, such as performing the spatial task of driving while also conducting the verbal task of carrying on a conversation.

“Based on the literature, you would expect no interference,” Drews said. “We were thrilled then to find interference because it has an impact on model or theory for attention. We were becoming more and more interested in the use of cell phones. We developed more questions and conducted more studies exploring the question of multi-tasking in cars. The reference point was always cell phone use.”

In the works, they have a study under review that finds no negative impact on driver attention while conversing with a passenger, “where, of course, cell phone use has,” Drews said, and another showing that you cannot develop the skill of conversing on the phone while driving, a concept that has found favor in some expected quarters.

“There’s another study in preparation that shows certain brain waves are changing as a function of conversation,” he said. “There’s a particular type of brain wave called P-300 that shows people are encountering new information. You get this huge response. We find in one of our studies you get suppression of this response conversing while driving. This is very interesting because it’s kind of supporting the whole idea of inattention blindness. With conversation and riving, you are dealing with pretty unpredictable tasks. Both require a lot of attention. What looks safe right now could change in three seconds.”

Drews wants to see wider discussion of this subject so that at least a few lives are not senselessly lost because of a cell phone conversation.

“My minimum hope would be that a couple people stop using their cell phones while driving, even if it’s one person who might have been killed while using a cell phone,” he said. “I would be very happy about that. Of course, I have more ambitious hopes, and one of them is that we as a society reach an agreement that conversing on cell phones while driving is an activity that is too risky, that we will not tolerate it.”

This is your brain on a cell phone

Google “cell phone egg” and you’ll call up various reports on how to cook an egg with a cell phone. The consensus on the internet seems to be that the story is a hoax.

But you can look it up, if you read Russian, that is.

Betsy Krizenesky does. In fact, she teaches second-year Russian at Lawrence University.

She checked out the newspaper website and the actual story that ran on April 21st of this year in the Moscow tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda, telling of how the two Russian journalists, Vladimir Lagovskiy and Andrei Moiseyenko, soft-boiled an egg with two cell phones.

“This is a very cool article, by the way!,” she said. “I just skimmed it and, in essence, they say that they tried the experiment themselves and it is, indeed, possible. You need two old (as in outdated) phones that are from two different service providers, a non-metallic holder for the egg, among other things. And a lot of time. Their egg took 65 minutes to get to the soft-boiled stage but it could be because one of the phones ran out of minutes at some stage.”

She also pointed out that though the newspaper is in a tabloid format, it isnÂ’t a tabloid in the sense of the American supermarket rag filled with stories about cows giving birth to baby boys and children watching as their father is eaten by a mad cat.

“It is a totally legit paper that has been around for a long time,” she said. “In an attempt to be regarded as hip and Western, many Russian newspapers have turned to a kind of tacky, tabloid format, to our eyes.”

Cooking an egg with two cell phones has frightening implications, but what does it prove?

In this case, with all the online skeptics, it proves that we donÂ’t want to believe technology can be bad for us. To say so, as Drs. Carlo and Gandhi and others who have gone up against the multi-billion dollar cell phone industry have found, is much like declaring yourself a heretic at a witch burning.

So what do you do? You donÂ’t want to give up your cell, but you also donÂ’t want to soft-boil your brain. Do as George Carlo does. Use a headset to keep the radio frequency away from your head.

Or support your U.S. Postal Service and writer a letter.