Dr. Weeks’ Comment: Can you hear me now? We have cautioned against electromagnetic pollution for over a decade now and at one point, as part of her amazing senior project, my daughter Anastasia quantified the dirty electricity at her high school and offered to “electriclear” the school at NO COST (her offer was refused in true bureaucratic intransigence). So now we simply post the swelling data calling attention to the plague of electrical pollution, hoping you can hear us now.
(and please please please take that cell phone out of your bra!)
Breast cancer rates are rising (see links below). Much has been made of the genetic factors increasing the risk for breast cancer. This is important, but many woman are getting it who have none of the identified genes. Not all cancer that “runs” in families are genetically linked. Families share more than genetics. They share environment.
I love the example in Devra Davis’ book “The Secret History of the War on Cancer”:
“Everyone knows that cancer can run in families. Take the Steingrabers of Illinois, the family of the lyrical environmental writer Sandra Steingraber, author of Living Downstream and Having Faith. Hers was a cancer-prone family for sure. The writer-daughter, her mother, three uncles, and a first cousin all got the disease. Could their shared disease have something to do with the pesticide-sodden wheat and cornfields of Illinois, and the the huge grain silos surrounding their small town? We can’t say. But we do know it had nothing to do with shared genes: Sandra and all those with cancer in her family are not related by blood.
Identical twins come from the same egg and share more chromosomes than any other two humans. They are as close to cloning as exists in nature. Despite their similar roots, identical twins do not have identical cancers. Cancer does run in families, but for those who are adopted, like Steingraber, the risk of the disease mirrors that of the families in which they grow up, not those into which they were born.” (Bold emphasis added)
This passage shows the fallacy of concluding that familial health outcomes necessarily relate to genetics. There is good reason to believe that recent increases in breast cancer are not genetically related. The rapidly increasing rate is one such reason. The rate of a genetically induced disease should take generations to rise, not rise rapidly on an annual basis. That sort of rise suggests an environmental trigger. I propose radiofrequency exposure as the environmental factor. Radiofrequency exposure can come from electrical pollution (www.electricalpollution.com
) or from wireless technology.
The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer
by Eger et al. (http://emrstop.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=4&Itemid=18
) found that “after five years’ operation of the transmitting installation, the relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of the area
[within 400 meters of the cellphone transmission mast].” The RF radiation levels within the 400 meters of the cell phone tower were 100 times higher than the levels outside that proximity. The risk of breast cancer within this area being significantly elevated and occurring nearly twenty years earlier
led the authors to propose “A possible question for future research is whether breast cancer can be used as a ”˜marker cancer’ for areas where there is high contamination from electromagnetic radiation.” Thus, the question is not just one of risk to the users, but those around them as they use their devices and around the transmitters that support the wireless devices and emit constant biologically active levels of radiation.
In other words, what risk are you willing to take with your health so that your neighbor can call from the bread isle of the supermarket to ask whether they should get white or wheat, etc?
More and more information is becoming available that highlights the dangers of radiofrequency exposure. A recent peer-reviewed paper provides a strong basis for classifying radiation from wireless devices as a probable carcinogen (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23664410). These scientists are not the first to say that there is a strong basis for classifying radiofrequency radiation, including radiation from common wireless devices and the ubiquitous antennas required to support them, as a probable carcinogen. In an October 2011 presentation at the Harvard Law School (http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2011/11/18_safra-center-cellphone-radiation-corruption.html), Dr. Franz Adlkofer, former executive director of the VERUM Foundation for Behavior and Environment, stated that, “the classification likely would have changed from ”˜possibly’ carcinogenic to ”˜probably'” had the IARC panel been allowed to consider all the evidence.
Don’t rely on cancer associations to get this right any time soon. The American Cancer Society statements on cell phone and cell tower risk read like industry damage control pieces and contains a number of inaccurate statements like “The energy of RF waves given off by cell phone towers is not enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules…” [Double strand DNA damage is caused by a microwave initiated oxidation reaction (peroxide formation), a reaction that is also initiated by ionizing radiation.] and “RF waves have long wavelengths, which can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from RF waves could be concentrated enough to affect individual cells in the body.” They should read the 2012 BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org
) which has over a thousand references showing how wrong these statements are. So should you. The Conclusions section found at http://bioinitiative.org/conclusions/
The American Cancer Society has been late off the block with cancer prevention measures before. One notable example was pap smears. It took them 15 years to recommend pap smears for women due to industry influence, in spite of strong evidence of benefit in cervical cancer prevention . Read more about their past history in Devra Davis’s book “The Secret History of the War on Cancer.” Please help cancer associations do better this time, if you are a member send them the Op Ed Cellphones implicated in cancer (http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/OpEdCommentaries/201307260126) and ask that they take action to raise awareness and push for meaningful safety limits.
If you would like to help prevent cancers related to the use of wireless devices, please donate to one of the numerous organizations, such as The EMRadiation Policy Institute (www.emrpolicy.org), working on education, awareness, even litigation, to move toward a public policy that protects public health and take the actions below.
Please pass this on widely to friends and relatives.
1. Pass on this email to friends and family. Link to the articles and videos mentioned on your Facebook or other social media platforms. Help spread the word.
2. Sign these petitions:
Petition to stop appointment of a telecom industry-man to head the FCC which is currently responsible for RF safety limits. He was highly involved in preventing meaningful safety limits from being enacted in the past (both for the environment and human health)
Petition to move responsibility for RF safety limits to an agency responsible for protecting health and the environment
4. Keep your phone (and other wireless devices) off or in airplane mode
except for brief emergency use (see www.electricalpollution.com
– Safe Wireless Tips)
5. Hardwire your computer, printer, and entertainment equipment and turn the transmitters OFF.
6. Reduce exposure to all sources of radiofrequency exposure
see the Solutions page at www.electricalpollution.com
8. Contact your Congress people and ask that work hard to get meaningful biologically-based RF safety limits – the petitions above provide a lot of background information you can discuss with them as well as concrete steps they can take.
Breast cancer among young women increasing
The rate of advanced breast cancer for U.S. women 25 to 39 years old nearly doubled from 1976 to 2009, a difference too great to be a matter of chance, a study finds.
Asbury Park Press
A slew of studies have linked breast cancer with men and women working as radio operators, electricians, telephone repair people and other jobs involving exposure to electromagnetic radiation. — Chemicals. Army enlisted women younger than under 35 …
Sent from a hardwired computer in a low rf environment