Bald with Braces…

…but are you sure you’re ugly?  It’s Christmas and cancer, chemo, alopoecia, dermatoses, diet, age, thyroids/illnesses, allergies, etc. or not… if we can, some of us like to dress up.

True baldness is not for everyone as hair is a premier female beauty asset…but if baldness is temporary or permanent…try ‘accessorising it’!

1) Foundation has to be put from neck over entire head…use a good one or you might get an allergy/poison yourself…it takes lots.   Beautifully sculpted, well marked eyebrows, striking eye make-up and a very bright mouth, even go for a tooth whitening, wear knock out looking clothes … in other words, make it style and fashion! Think Nefertiti!

2) Get some fancy earrings … chandaliers or ones designed to follow all the curves of the pinnae or lots of elelgant piercings

3) Get a wig…think Raquel Welch’s wig charity

4) Hats and scarves

5) Wear a spiral neck ring/neck rings

5) Get into the styles and fashions of other nationalities to whom female baldness is beautiful.

And for those who would just love to have their hair back, don’t despair, check:

1) The above suggestions

2) Get into any of the trichologists’ offices

3) Get a weave, get a topical hair grower, get black castor oil, get silica, get your thyroids & hormones checked, go to the dermatologist, get counselling, change your diet, change your hair grooming practices, get counselling, change/change dose of your medication…be willing to work on getting better or accepting and planning…no overnight business ‘hair’.

The Work of a Muse…What I Love Most…..’Counselling-wise’

There are lots of ways to counsel and coach but,  like the other pages on my site suggest, I like the approach of “The Muse”.  What do I mean by this?  Well, I’ll tell you three of my favourite muse experiences.  These client situations exemplify my favourite way of working…impromtu informal

1)  A lady had marriage jitters and  asked me to spend 2 evenings at her home dispelling her fears (the marriage is going well by the way).  In the course of our exchange, she found out I know something about ballroom dance and I spent the month preparing her and her mate for the opening waltz…and he too came into the counselling exchange, realising the concerns of his prospective wife, and HE dispelled her fears…while I listened!!!

2) A lady called me to help her with her diet,  she found out I know something about writing and publishing and I helped her edit her first book over the course of 2 weeks…the book led me to her real issues…diet was the surface.

3) A client called me to help with managing chronic leg problems…I ended up providing a 2 hour overview of Jamaican herbal medicine.


Check out The Lucky Bitch, Denise Duffield Thomas…here’s a ‘muse’ with a difference!

The New “F” Word


Breaking News…..!!!!!   Have you heard ‘the Gospel of the New ‘F’ Word’???  (Come now you conservatives, I mean you no offense, but I’m sure the Lord has a sense of humour because we were made with one)……This was read by the head usher to a much beloved rector on the occasion of his leaving to oversee another ‘flock’…hopefully to take there as well, the message that men must be allowed to think like men in order to evolve…

The Gospel According to Stafford VS1 Ch1

The new ‘F’ word in at least one Church is “Forgive”.

 “So it may be fitting, as per info passed on by Stafford and here’s hoping that I am not offending you, that before you go, you ask all of us to turn to the one beside us and say “I F-You”. You might even wish to take it a little further by asking them to look down the aisle and say “I F-everybody”. Some might even text their EXs and say “I F-You”.  Inculcate in us, Monsignor, the need to ‘F’ all and, it is our wish, that one of your Legacies at your new parish, St. Richards, will be the same ‘F’ word as it is paramount that we always ‘Forgive’ our neighbors as we forgive ourselves. Right? Amen

IN LOVE AND LIGHT….and thank you Stafford..”

More Cell Phone Disaster

Be Aware: These Cell Phones Can Emit 28 Times More Radiation
Posted by: Dr. Mercola | June 18 2011 | 107,796 views

Check out the paragraph OnlineCounsellingJamaica has ‘pinked’ in the middle of the article.

Here’s some news about cell phones and cancer which even the mainstream media has found impossible to ignore. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), has declared after a review of the research that cell phones are possible cancer-causing agents. The expert panel ruled that there was some evidence that cell phone use was linked to two types of tumors—brain tumors (gliomas) and acoustic neuromas.

Some scientists say the IARC classification is still not strong enough, and that cell phone radiation should have been classified as a “Probable Human Carcinogen” based on the existing science, but evidently there were not enough studies to classify it more strongly at this time.

Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch in the U.K. says,

“The existing science is very clear there is risk of cancer from cell phone use. The warning might have been 2A if there were a larger number of animal studies showing this, or if there were a larger number of up-to-date human studies. It’s important to recognize the Interphone study on which the classification to a large extent relied was completed in 2004, and current studies reflecting usage patterns today would be far more damning, possibly earning a Class 1 “Human Carcinogen.”

However, according to Electromagnetic Health:

“Nonetheless, the IARC opinion is a breath of fresh air to many, and restores some integrity to a badly tarnished IARC … The IARC classification of cell phones as a ‘possible human carcinogen’ will now travel throughout the world, influencing governments far and wide, for the 1st time providing an official scientific basis on which governments, schools and parents can legitimately call for precautionary behavior regarding these radiation-emitting devices.”

Professor Dariusz Leszczynski, of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland, explains why this should probably be considered big news:

“… for the first time a very prominent evaluation report states it so openly and clearly: RF-EMF is possibly carcinogenic to humans. One has to remember that IARC monographs are considered as ‘gold standard’ in evaluation of carcinogenicity of physical and chemical agents. If IARC says it so clearly then there must be sufficient scientific reason for it, or IARC would not put its reputation behind such claim.”

WHO’s Group 2 Classification of Cancer Risk
“This category includes agents for which, at one extreme, the degree of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is almost sufficient, as well as those for which, at the other extreme, there are no human data but for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Agents are assigned to either Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) or Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) on the basis of epidemiological and experimental evidence of carcinogenicity and mechanistic and other relevant data.

The terms probably carcinogenic and possibly carcinogenic have no quantitative significance and are used simply as descriptors of different levels of evidence of human carcinogenicity, with probably carcinogenic signifying a higher level of evidence than possibly carcinogenic.”

So as you can see, while some journalists and scientists are now downplaying the IARC decision, saying the IARC classification of cell phones as possibly carcinogenic does not mean cell phones cause cancer, and even preposterously claiming that there is no evidence of this at all, there is no uncertainty that IARC, a highly respected scientific body, is now clearly saying there is evidence of carcinogenicity, otherwise they would not have classified in category 2B.

See Citizens for Health commentary on this, including comments on the 2B classification by 20+ year veteran of the IARC, Dr. Annie J. Sasco of Bordeaux Segalen University, France

Camilla Rees of says,

“We expect to see continued spin from all directions, attempting to confuse the public and raise doubt, for some time to come. Thus it is especially important citizens be able to spot the misinformation and recognize there is an extraordinary propaganda machine in motion. We expect this will get LOUDER until industry is one day forced to cry ‘Uncle” under the expected landslide pressure lawsuits and from governments.”

Already, three senior members of Congress are calling on the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a “thorough review” of the science and “adequacy” of current FCC exposure guidelines. These include Representatives Ed Markey (MA), Henry Waxman (CA) and Anna Eshoo (CA). And Reuters reports the Supreme Court is considering the fate of existing cell phone safety litigation in light of the WHO classification.

The IARC decision came only days after the Council of Europe, elders from 47 European countries, has called for a dramatic reduction in EMF exposure to humans from call phones and wireless technologies.

It is important to realize, however, that cell phones may not all be the same. Although all cell phones emit radiation, CDMA cell phones, such as those used by Sprint and Verizon, do not pulse their signals like the GSM phones used by AT&T and T-Mobile.

According to Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, “GSM phones emit about 28 times more radiation on average compared to CDMA phones according to one published study.” Dr. Moskowitz recommends switching to a CDMA carrier if you want to reduce your radiation exposure.

Magda Havas, PhD of Trent University, Canada, agrees pulsed radiation is more dangerous:

“Pulsed radiation is much more harmful and the true intensity is not provided as it is “averaged” during a period of time (30 minutes for public exposure in US). The average of the pulse (maximum reading) and the minimum reading
gives a false low reading. Engineers like to measure averages but living organisms react to extremes so these average readings under estimate the potential for harm if the radiation is pulsed.”


Electromagnetic Health May 31, 2011

Gizmodo May 31, 2011

The New York Times May 31, 2011

Video Transcript

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

This is truly a groundbreaking moment; one that I and other safety advocates have worked toward for over a decade. I personally began warning my readers about the potential health hazards of cell phones and the need to adhere to the precautionary principle in the late 1990’s. So those of you who have been long-time readers of this newsletter, you’ve had more than 10 years to consider the evidence and implement safety precautions for yourself and your family.

Cell Phone Radiation Declared “Possible Carcinogen”
On May 21, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a committee of 27 scientists from 14 different countries working on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), concluded that exposure to cell phone radiation is a “possible carcinogen” and classified it into the 2B category. This is the same category as the pesticide DDT, lead, gasoline engine exhaust, burning coal and dry cleaning chemicals, just to name a few.

The group did not perform any new research; rather the decision is based on a review of the previously published evidence, including the Interphone study results published so far (about 50% have still not been released) and the Hardell studies. This is the same evidence that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS), among others, have previously waved aside; calling it “reassuring,” and claiming it showed “no evidence” of harm.

Finally, this international committee of experts has now declared otherwise. Only days before the meeting commenced, a key ‘expert’, Dr. Anders Albom of the Karolinska Institute, was let go from the expert group after it was revealed he had failed to disclose a potential telecom industry conflict on his WHO conflict-of-interest statement. Anders Albom and others long suspected of ties to the telecom industry had recently been featured in the spoof poster created by activists below, “The Science of the Lambs”.

Christopher Wild, Director of IARC, opened the IARC meeting on carcinogenicity of RF calling for scientists to understand the gravity of the upcoming decision for society.

Cell Phones—A Worldwide Health Hazard
As you probably know, over five billion people worldwide, about 80 percent of the world’s population, now has a cell phone. This fact alone makes this an extremely important issue as it affects the vast majority of people on Earth—not to mention the detrimental impact it may have on insects, such as bees, and other animals. Many Third World countries have actually circumvented the infrastructure of landlines entirely, and have gone straight to using cell phones.

It’s important to realize that while this type of radiation exposure may not pose an immediate short-term threat to your health, as it is not an ionizing type of radiation (like x-rays) that can break chemical bonds and directly damage DNA, cell phones emit a radio frequency field in the microwave band that interacts with your own bio signaling system, which can over time cause a variety of health problems and raise your risk of cancer. Cancers associated with this radiation include brain tumors (gliomas), acoustic neuromas, meningiomas, salivary gland tumors, eye cancers, testiculal cancers and leukemia.

And, importantly, in some people, acute symptoms from cell phone radiation can also be debilitating, greatly impairing cognitive function, even for long periods after cell phone use. And while DNA is not directly impacted, its repair processes are impacted, the end result being damaged and malfunctioning DNA, with unknown consequences for future generations.

Don’t be misled by those saying there is not DNA damage just because the power is not hot enough to separate electrons from atoms. DNA has been shown to be exquisitely sensitive to these fields, according to research by Martin Blank, PhD of Columbia University and others. In fact, it is “exquisitely sensitive” to EMFs, Blank says, across the entire spectrum of frequencies (i.e. from the low frequency ELFs, such as from electricity, to the higher frequency radiofrequency and microwaves from cell phones and WiFI, due to DNA’s ‘coil of coil structure’.

In 2008, the year for which we have the most recent statistics, there were 237,913 new cases of brain cancers and about two-thirds of these were gliomas.

The WHO scientific committee, relying on much research from the Swedish Hardell group and IARC’s own 13-country Interphone data, found that cell phone radiation exposure increased the risk of this type of cancer by as much as 40 percent. However, other experts who have reviewed the evidence believe it may be far worse than that, warning that it may actually double your risk of developing brain cancer.

Wireless Industry Grasping for Straws
Needless to say, the wireless industry is now scrambling to counteract the bad press. John Walls, vice president for public affairs for The Wireless Association (CTIA) was quoted in the New York Times, stating:

“This IARC classification does not mean cell phones cause cancer.”

He also noted that both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have evaluated the evidence, concluding that cell phone radiation does not pose a health threat.

Well, the last time I checked, the FDA couldn’t even distinguish between the health effects of raw- versus pasteurized milk laced with genetically modified growth hormones, so I’m not so sure they’re qualified to evaluate something as complex as the health effects of non-ionizing radiation… And the FCC, while it regulates the media industry, including telecommunications services, it is also politically tied to those industries. At least one of the current commissioners (who make the decisions) is a former telecommunications industry lobbyist.

Additionally, as clearly stated on the FCC’s website, the FCC’s “primary jurisdiction does not lie in the health and safety area, and it must rely on other agencies and organizations for guidance in these matters.” Hence, it stands to reason that a “thumbs up” from the FCC is not all it’s cracked up to be.

In all likelihood they too may eventually be forced to recognize the IARC’s classification of cell phone radiation as “possibly carcinogenic, and change exposure guidelines for industry for microwave radiation from wireless technologies so that the standards are based on what we know is happening biologically, not simply on assumptions of physicists. An excellent write-up on the FDA and FCC conflicts and the failure of our government on this was published on last summer: asked,

“If the FCC says it relies on the safety expertise of the FDA, and states it considered opinions from the FDA in setting its safety guidelines, but the FDA officially does not review the safety of radiation-emitting consumer products such as cell phones and PDAs before they can be sold, as it does with new drugs or medical devices, then where is the responsibility for assuring safety actually domiciled?”

The New York Times also quotes Dr. Meir Stampfer, a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health and a paid adviser for the cell phone industry:

“It’s a very thoughtful group, but the important thing is putting it into the perspective of what ‘possible’ means, and the likelihood that this is really something to be concerned about. The evidence doesn’t support that. Comparing this to going out in the sun or any number of normal everyday activities that we’re not really concerned about, I would put cell phones in the lower part of that category.”

His outdated knowledge about the “danger” of sun exposure notwithstanding, I cannot help but think that this is little more than a grasping for straws, supporting his telecom client’s interests.

John Maris, MD of Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia, has also recently made a statement in which he said, several times, “there is nothing at all to be worried about”.

Misinterpreting the intent of the 2B classification of cell phone radiation as a potential carcinogen, Maris said

“The World Health Organization released a cautionary statement to say that we just need more information. That does not mean that cell phones cause cancer.”

However, if we simply needed ‘more information’, cell phone radiation would not have been classified as a possible carcinogen by this esteemed body. And they made this decision before publishing the remaining almost 50 percent of the Interphone study, including much of the results from studies on tumors closest to where the cell phone us held against the head.

Cell phone radiation has the potential to harm your health, just like DDT or lead, which is what experts in the field have been saying for years. That doesn’t mean that every person exposed to those substances will get cancer.

But it raises your overall risk, depending on a number of other factors, such as your general state of health, which in part is dependent on exposure to other toxins through food, air, and water, just to name a few. And I believe it’s important to remember that when we’re talking about toxins in general, it’s your accumulated toxic load that matters most. So in that sense, heavy users of cell phones and other wireless gadgets are at exponentially increased risk, and should at the very least be warned so that they can make educated decisions about their self-imposed level of exposure.

Why You Should Take Notice of the IARC’s Conclusion
Darius Leszczynski, an electromagnetic field (EMF) scientist with the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland, points out in a recent blog post that one of the factors that lend extra weight to the IARC’s decision is that of the 27 working group members (Three of the 30 IARC members did not participate in the final voting process. One had previously been removed from the group due to a previously undisclosed potential conflict of interest.), a clear and overwhelming majority voted for the 2B classification. It was not a decision fraught with controversy and disagreement.

“This should be recognized as a strong mandate, for the IARC and the WHO, to classify RF-EMF (including mobile phone radiation) as 2B agent – possibly carcinogenic to humans,” Leszczynski writes.

… One has to remember that IARC monographs are considered as “gold standard” in evaluation of carcinogenicity of physical and chemical agents. If IARC says it so clearly then there must be sufficient scientific reason for it, or IARC would not put its reputation behind such claim.”

An excellent review of the dynamics surrounding the IARC decision, including the industry supporting views of the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Peter Inskip, who walked out of the meeting before the vote, can be found on Microwave News.

What Does this Mean Long-Term?
Some nations have already adopted the precautionary principle, and have previously issued precautionary advice to mobile phone users. Now that cell phone radiation has been classified as a “possible carcinogen,” these messages can be strengthened in a meaningful way to reach more people, across the world.

Additionally, we’re still in the infancy of EMF science as it relates to understanding the mechanism of the human health effects. One of the most beneficial effects this classification can have is to increase support for more research, as only when the mechanisms of action are better understood can causation be proven.

Research funds have begun to dry up in recent years, but that doesn’t mean we don’t need more research. It just means that those holding the purse strings thought it wasn’t worth looking into further since the potential for health hazards seemed remote, based on conventional thinking about the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation, or because the findings would be detrimental to the cell phone industry.

Government officials rely on the wireless industry for financial support, and the health of our entire economy is deeply intertwined at this point with telecom industry interests.

Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch in the U.K. makes the important point that we are basing our insight, even in the IARC evaluation, on research conducted many, many years ago, and usage patterns have changed. He says that a review of the incidence of brain tumors conducted in the U.K. show that in fact the incidence rates for malignant temporal and frontal lobe tumors IS in fact rising.

Philips says,

“The graph below, created from research by de Vocht et al shows a rise in brain tumors in the regions of the brain closest to where you hold a cell phone. Tumors in other areas of the brain are actually decreasing.”

This is an extremely important finding says Camilla Rees of, as other countries have not separated out their overall brain tumor incidence data by type and location of tumor so insights like this, that brain tumors are actually on the rise, can be gleaned.

If we fail to continue researching the effects of this type of radiation, we throw away the opportunity to perhaps alter the technology in such a way that it significantly reduces the health impacts. I believe doing nothing is not an option at present, and hopefully the IARC’s decision will help usher in greater research and safer technologies.

Rees says greater transparency in research funding is also urgently needed:

“Universities must be upfront and disclose the extent of their funding from telecom industry sources. This way, when statements downplaying the known cancer risks are made by academics, any telecom industry potential influence can be better assessed and clearer to the public.”

Three Important Factors to Remember that May Reduce Health Risks
The major take-home fact that everyone needs to be concerned about is to protect your children, as they’re clearly the most vulnerable. This includes unborn babies as well, so pregnant women may want to take extra precautions.

Increasing numbers of children are now using cell phones at an ever younger age, and it’s important to realize that this exponentially increases their risk of cancer and any other wireless radiation-related health problems over their lifetime. According to professor Lennart Hardell of Sweden, those who begin using cell phones heavily as teenagers have 4 to 5 times more brain cancer as young adults!

So I believe you really need to set limits, if you’re a parent.

How to Pick the Phone Carrier with the Lowest EMF
Please remember, you cannot determine safety by the SAR (specific absorption rate) on your phone. Buying a low SAR phone is a false sense of security, because the SAR rating has nothing to do with the non-ionizing radiation emitted and only is gauge of the intensity of the heating effect, and simply comparing one phone to another. One thing you can do, which hardly anyone is discussing, is to pick your cell phone carrier appropriately. There are two primary technologies used to distribute cell phone signals in the U.S.:

As it turns out, GSM is far more dangerous because it emits 28 times more radiation than CDMA phones. In the United States, there are two primary CDMA networks: Verizon and Sprint. Most of the others use GSM, but you need to check with your specific carrier to confirm.

Common Sense Tips to Lower Your Cell Phone Risks
While the IARC panel, being a science not policy organization, did not make many specific recommendations to consumers, IARC Director Christopher Wild did take it upon himself to publically state:

“Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings it is important that additional research be conducted into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting.”

And, Jonathan Samet, leader of the IARC RF-Carcinogenicity working group, of University of Southern California, has said:

“The 2B designation was not limited to cell phones. It has “broad applicability” to all sources of RF radiation” according to Microwave News, something the general news media has not yet zeroed in on.

Keep in mind that completely eliminating exposure is close to impossible. Even if you don’t use a cell phone and your home is wireless-free, you can be exposed to microwave radiation from your neighbor’s wireless devices or while visiting “hot spots” or traveling near cell phone towers. That said, there’s still plenty you can do to minimize your exposure and help safeguard your children’s health:

Children Should Never Use Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults, because of their thinner skull bones, and still developing immune and neurological systems.
Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call.

Leave an outgoing message on your phone stating your cell phone policy so others know not to call you on it except in emergencies.
Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness.
Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them every single time.
If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are no safer during calls, but at least some of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made. Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won’t help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers.

Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren’t talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, it may not be as damaging to your health.

Ideally it would be helpful to turn off or disconnect your base station every night before you go to bed. Levels of microwave radiation from portable phones can be extraordinarily high, according to Camilla Rees.

“Portable phone radiation can be as high or higher than a wireless router, though most people would have no idea that this common device at their bedside could be harmful”.

You can find RF meters at But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is labeled DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.

Limit Your Cell Phone Use to Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.

Also seek to avoid carrying your phone on your body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man’s pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility.
Don’t Assume One Cell Phone is Safer than Another.There’s no such thing as a “safe” cell phone, and do not rely on the SAR value to evaluate the safety of your phone. Always seek CDMA carriers over GSM as they have far lower radiation in their signaling technology. And remember, eliminating cell phone use, or greatly lowering cell phone use from phones of all kinds, is where true prevention begins.
Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.
Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others’ cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor’s office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the ‘second hand radiation’ effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children.
Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient information carrying radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain. Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.

The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.
We Can WIN this Battle
This latest development reminds me of the statements made by two famous men: Gandhi, and Arthur Schopenhauer, about the stages all truths must go through before being fully integrated into any society:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mohandas Gandhi

All truth passes through three stages.
1.First, it is ridiculed. 2.Second, it is violently opposed. 3.Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
We are now entering into the third phase described by Schopenhauer:


This is the typical transition, and it’s not just related to health; it’s really related to any principle of truth because truth is something that you really can’t suppress for very long. It will eventually surface, and it’s exactly what we’re now seeing in so many areas.

For example, I was one of the first public figures to recommend and encourage the use of vitamin D because of all of its amazing health benefits, and for years I’ve sought to dispel the beliefs of many dermatologists and expert medical groups that the sun is dangerous. Nothing could be further from the truth as long as you have reasonable and rational exposure to it. This is one major area where we’ve already made a huge impact.

Here are four more health challenges that are currently being violently opposed under the current paradigm:

1.Water fluoridation
2.Genetically modified (GM) food
3.Mercury amalgams
I address these four issues in the video above, so if you haven’t done so already, please listen to it, or read through the transcript.

More Information
Now that we’ve established safer ways of using your cell phone, I just want to emphasize how excited and delighted I am about this recent announcement from the IARC because it really is a vindication of much of the work that I’ve been doing. Over the years, I’ve posted more than 200 articles about this topic.

To learn more, please see my dedicated EMF site.

I highly recommend setting aside an hour to listen to founder Camilla Rees’ interview with Karl Maret, MD. With an extensive background in medicine, electrical engineering, and biomedical engineering, Dr. Maret is uniquely qualified to speak on the topic of electromagnetic fields, and he shares some of the most compelling arguments to date on why you must use extreme caution when it comes to cell phones, cordless phones, smart meters and other forms of electromagnetic fields (EMFs).

You can also listen to an important 20-minute speech by Martin Blank, PhD, who spoke at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, “The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields,” co-sponsored by Dr. Blank speaks with deep experience and commanding authority on the impact on cells and DNA from electromagnetic fields, and explains why your DNA is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds.

An “Elephant in the Room”?
On a final note, Camilla Rees of cautions that while the IARC decision was a true watershed event, especially given IARC’s own 13-country Interphone study downplayed brain tumor risk when published last May, with news headlines heralding “No Risk Found”, she says:

“This first IARC classification is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a big elephant in the room most people are not seeing.

Microwave radiation emitted by cell phones is the same kind of radiation emitted by other wireless technologies, such as WiFi routers, portable phones, wireless baby monitors and cell towers.

The distinction is that the cell phone has more power at the head, and they operate at different frequencies. But given society is blanketing itself in this radiation at a range of frequencies, and the radiation is known to cause DNA damage, cancer, impaired fertility, cognitive impairment, such as memory changes, interference with learning and wildlife and ecosystem effects, we feel it is urgent that federal research funding be immediately allocated to examining this issue in the broader sense, far beyond the cell phone and brain tumor issue”

Fertility and Other Concerns
Fertility impacts from wireless radiation is one of the issues that is of greatest concern, given the number of people exposed to wireless technologies. Last Fall Rees published a “Letter to Parents on Fertility and Other Risks to Children” discussing these concerns that every parents will want to read.

And this month, Holistic Primary Care, a large circulation magazine for physicians and health practitioners, has published a piece on fertility by Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch entitled “Male Infertility Linked to Cell Phone EMF Exposure” Philips reviews the damage to sperm morphology and motility, fertility, as well as DNA and testicular changes . All men, or parents of a male child, will want to understand the fertility damage now occurring and take steps to create EMF-free environments.

Beyond fertility impairment, Rees says there is grave concern among scientists, such as Dr. Blank, about EMF’s impact on our genetic material:

“If we do not look at this subject now, with significant federal resources, the damage occurring to the human species, as well as to animals and nature, may not be reversible. It is important public health officials understand the consequences of their inaction, or slow action, on this urgent public health issue”.

Joel Moskowitz, PhD of UC Berkeley and others, as well, have proposed a $1 per year surcharge on cell phones to fund a $300 million federal research fund immediately.

Rees says an immediate step schools should take is to swap out wireless networks and exchange them with hard-wired connections.

“This will lessen long-term damage to our children as well prevent the short-term cognitive difficultiess occurring that impair learning. This investment in our children’s health is essential”.

Rees, who is founder of is also founder of Campaign for Radiation Free Schools (Facebook).

“What I don’t understand”, Rees says, “is how a trillion dollar industry could have emerged without our government expressing concern about human exposure to microwave radiation, when we have known for over a half century that microwaves are biologically active. There has been a terrible failure of government here. I hope we can learn from this.

Congress needs to place public safety above commercial interests. We have seen health overlooked in so many areas of society, for example in government support of Big Pharma, Big Telccom, Big Agra, etc.,at the expense of public health, and it is our responsibility as citizens to stand up and let our representatives in Congress understand what we value, and actively vote those representatives in government out of office if they are not concerned with our values and responding to serious public health issues.”

Readers can sign the EMF Petition to Congress here.

Related Links:

Latest EMF News

European Leaders Call for Ban of Cell Phones and WiFi in Schools

Cell Phones Raise Children’s Risk of Brain Cancer 500 Percent

Save Options Private Favorites (This will appear on your saved articles for later viewing)

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked. The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional.

†The World’s #1 Natural Health Website claim is based upon Alexa Natural Health Website rankings.
EMF DISCLAIMER: This site is provided at no charge and is open to the public for questions and discussion regarding issues with electromagnetic fields. Though the site will be monitored and offensive material removed, nor Ms. Vicki Warren are responsible for the information within the questions or discussions. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. The products or procedures discussed are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
Copyright Dr. Joseph Mercola, 2011. All Rights Reserved.

Cell Phone Dangers

GQ Magazine

Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health

Ever worry that that gadget you spend hours holding next to your head might be damaging your brain? Well, the evidence is starting to pour in, and it’s not pretty. So why isn’t anyone in America doing anything about it?

By Christopher Ketcham

Photograph by Tom Schierlitz

February 2010

Earlier this winter, I met an investment banker who was diagnosed with a brain tumor five years ago. He’s a managing director at a top Wall Street firm, and I was put in touch with him through a colleague who knew I was writing a story about the potential dangers of cell-phone radiation. He agreed to talk with me only if his name wasn’t used, so I’ll call him Jim. He explained that the tumor was located just behind his right ear and was not immediately fatal—the five-year survival rate is about 70 percent. He was 35 years old at the time of his diagnosis and immediately suspected it was the result of his intense cell-phone usage. “Not for nothing,” he said, “but in investment

banking we’ve been using cell phones since 1992, back when they were the Gordon-Gekko-on-the-beach kind of phone.” When Jim asked his neurosurgeon, who was on the staff of a major medical center in Manhattan, about the possibility of a cell-phone-induced tumor, the doctor responded that in fact he was seeing more and more of such cases—young, relatively healthy businessmen who had long used their phones obsessively. He said he believed the industry had discredited studies showing there is a risk from cell phones. “I got a sense that he was pissed off,” Jim told me. A handful of Jim’s colleagues had already died from brain cancer; the more reports he encountered of young finance guys developing tumors, the more certain he felt that it wasn’t a coincidence. “I knew four or five people just at my firm who got tumors,” Jim says. “Each time, people ask the question. I hear it in the hallways.”

It’s hard to talk about the dangers of cell-phone radiation without sounding like a conspiracy theorist. This is especially true in the United States, where non-industry-funded studies are rare, where legislation protecting the wireless industry from legal challenges has long been in place, and where our lives have been so thoroughly integrated with wireless technology that to suggest it might be a problem—maybe, eventually, a very big public-health problem—is like saying our shoes might be killing us.

Except our shoes don’t send microwaves directly into our brains. And cell phones do—a fact that has increasingly alarmed the rest of the world. Consider, for instance, the following headlines that have appeared in highly reputable international newspapers and journals over the past few years. From summer 2006, in the Hamburg Morgenpost: are we telephoning ourselves to death? That fall, in the Danish journal Dagens Medicin: mobile phones affect the brain’s metabolism. December 2007, from Agence France-Presse: israeli study says regular mobile use increases tumour risk. January 2008, in London’s Independent: mobile phone radiation wrecks your sleep. September 2008, in Australia’s The Age: scientists warn of mobile phone cancer risk.

Though the scientific debate is heated and far from resolved, there are multiple reports, mostly out of Europe’s premier research institutions, of cell-phone and PDA use being linked to “brain aging,” brain damage, early-onset Alz­heimer’s, senility, DNA damage, and even sperm die-offs (many men, after all, keep their cell phones in their pants pockets or attached at the hip). In September 2007, the European Union’s environmental watchdog, the European Environment Agency, warned that cell-phone technology “could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol.”

Perhaps most worrisome, though, are the preliminary results of the multinational Interphone study sponsored by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in Lyon, France. (Scientists from thirteen countries took part in the study, the United States conspicuously not among them.) Interphone researchers reported in 2008 that after a decade of cell-phone use, the chance of getting a brain tumor—specifically on the side of the head where you use the phone—goes up as much as 40 percent for adults. Interphone researchers in Israel have found that cell phones can cause tumors of the parotid gland (the salivary gland in the cheek), and an independent study in Sweden last year concluded that people who started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were five times as likely to develop a brain tumor. Another Interphone study reported a nearly 300 percent increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the acoustic nerve.

As more results of the Interphone study trickled out, I called Louis Slesin, who has a doctorate in environmental policy from MIT and in 1980 founded an investigative newsletter called Microwave News. “No one in this country cared!” Slesin said of the findings. “It wasn’t news!” He suggested that much of the comfort of our modern lives depends on not caring, on refusing to recognize the dangers of microwave radiation. “We love our cell phones. The paradigm that there’s no danger here is part of a worldview that had to be put into place,” he said. “Americans are not asking the questions, maybe because they don’t want the answers. So what will it take?”

To understand how radiation from cell phones and wireless transmitters affects the human brain, and to get some sense of why the concerns raised in so many studies outside the U.S. are not being seriously raised here, it’s necessary to go back fifty years, long before the advent of the cell phone, to the research of a young neuroscientist named Allan Frey.

In 1960, Frey, then 25, was working at General Electric’s Advanced Electronics Center at Cornell University when he was contacted by a technician whose job was to measure the signals emitted by radar stations. At the time, Frey had taken an interest in the electrical nature of the human body, specifically in how electric fields affect neural functioning. The technician claimed something incredible: He said he could “hear” radar at one of the sites where he worked.

Frey traveled to the facility and stood in the radar field. “And sure enough, I could hear it, too,” he said, describing the persistent low-level hum. Frey went on to establish that the effect was real—electromagnetic (EM) radiation from radar could somehow be heard by human beings. The “hearing,” however, didn’t happen via normal sound waves perceived through the ear. It occurred somewhere in the brain itself, as EM waves interacted with the brain’s cells, which generate tiny electrical fields. This idea came to be known as the Frey effect, and it caused an uproar in the neuroscience community.

The waves that Frey was concerned with were those emitted from the nonionizing part of the EM spectrum—the part that scientists always assumed could do no outright biological damage. When Frey began his research, it was assumed that the only way microwaves could have a damaging biological effect was if you increased the power of their signals and concentrated them like sword points—to the level where they could cook flesh. In 1967, this resulted in the first popular microwave oven, which employed microwave frequencies at very high power, concentrated and contained in a metal box. Aside from this engineered thermal effect, the signals were assumed to be safe.

Allan Frey would help pioneer the science that suggested otherwise. At the vanguard of a new field of study that came to be known as bioelectromagnetics, he found what appeared to be grave nonthermal effects from microwave frequencies—the part of the spectrum that belongs not just to radar signals and microwave ovens but also, in the past fifteen years, to cell phones. (The only honest way to think of our cell phones is that they are tiny, low-power microwave ovens, without walls, that we hold against the sides of our heads.) Frey tested microwave radiation on frogs and other lab animals, targeting the eyes, the heart, and the brain, and in each case he found troubling results. In one study, he triggered heart arrhythmias. Then, using the right modulations of the frequency, he even stopped frog hearts with microwaves—stopped the hearts dead.

Frey observed two factors in how microwaves at low power could affect living systems. First, there was the carrier wave: a frequency of 1,900 megahertz, for example, the same frequency of many cell phones today. Then there was the data placed on the carrier wave—in the case of cell phones, this would be the sounds, words, and pictures that travel along it. When you add information to a carrier wave, it embeds a second signal—a second frequency—within the carrier wave. This is known as modulation. A carrier wave can support any number of modulations, even those that match the ­extra-low frequencies at which the brain operates (between eight and twenty hertz). It was modulation, Frey discovered, that induced the widest variety of biological effects. But how this happened, on a neuronal level, he didn’t yet understand.

In a study published in 1975 in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Frey reported that microwaves pulsed at certain modulations could induce “leakage” in the barrier between the circulatory system and the brain. Breaching the blood-brain barrier is a serious matter: It means the brain’s environment, which needs to be extremely stable for nerve cells to function properly, can be perturbed in all kinds of dangerous ways. Frey’s method was rather simple: He injected a fluorescent dye into the circulatory system of white rats, then swept the ­microwave frequencies across their bodies. In a matter of minutes, the dye had leached into the confines of the rats’ brains.

Frey says his work on radar microwaves and the blood-brain barrier soon came under assault from the government. Scientists hired and funded by the Pentagon claimed they’d failed to replicate his findings, yet they also refused to share the data or methodology behind their research (“a most unusual action in science,” Frey wrote at the time). For more than fifteen years, Frey had received almost unrestricted funding from the Office of Naval Research. Now he was told to conceal his blood-brain-barrier work or his contract would be canceled.

Since then, no meaningful research into the effect of microwaves on the blood-brain barrier has been pursued in the United States. But a Swedish neurosurgeon, Leif Salford, recently expanded on Frey’s work, confirming much of what Frey revealed decades ago. Salford found that microwave exposure killed rodents’ brain cells and stimulated neurons associated with Alzheimer’s. “A rat’s brain is very much the same as a human’s,” he said in a 2003 interview with the BBC. “They have the same blood-brain barrier and neurons. We have good reason to believe that what happens in rats’ brains also happens in humans’. ” His research, he said, suggests that “a whole generation of [cell-phone] users may suffer negative effects in middle age.”

The potential complications don’t end there. In the mid-1990s, a biophysicist at the University of Washington named Henry Lai began to make profound discoveries about the effects of such frequencies not only on the blood-brain barrier but also on the actual structure of rat DNA. Lai found that modulated EM radiation could cause breaks in DNA strands—breaks that could then lead to genetic damage and mutations that would be passed on for generations. What surprised Lai was that the damage was accomplished in a single two-hour exposure.

“This was explosive news,” Slesin said. “The reason it was so important was at the time you had all these allegations of brain tumors and cell phones being connected”—specifically the 1992 lawsuit brought by a Florida man, David Reynard, against a number of companies that manufactured phones and provided cell service, following the death of his wife from a brain tumor. “If you can break up DNA with cell-phone radiation, suddenly it’s not such a stretch to think of brain tumors developing from this radiation.”

Galvanized by the Reynard case, Motorola frantically mobilized to reassure its investors. Then, in 1994, the company went on the attack to discredit Lai, issuing a memo, later obtained by Slesin, stating it had “war-gamed” Lai’s work. “We do not believe that Motorola should put anyone on-camera,” the memo said. “We must limit our corporate visibility.” It further stated that the “key question” was whether “this experiment [can] be replicated.”

The cell-phone industry funds lots of risk studies, and many of them show no effect from cell-phone-related radiation. The industry pointed to those favorable studies when countering Lai’s DNA findings. (In 2004, it should be pointed out, a European Union–funded study carried out by twelve research groups in seven countries found evidence of genotoxic effects resulting from cell-phone radiation—the same kind of DNA damage that Henry Lai uncovered in the 1990s.) But when Jerry Phillips, a scientist with the Veterans Administration whose work was funded by Motorola, replicated Lai’s findings, the company put him under so much pressure not to publish that Phillips abruptly quit microwave research altogether.

Industry-funded studies seem to reflect the result of corporate strong-arming. Lai reviewed 350 studies and found that about half showed bioeffects from EM radiation emitted by cell phones. But when he took into consideration the funding sources for those 350 studies, the results changed dramatically. Only 25 percent of the studies paid for by the industry showed effects, compared with 75 percent of those studies that were independently funded.

The cell-phone industry has managed to exert its influence in other ways, too. In the United States, the organization most influential in the government’s setting of standards for microwave exposure is the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), which bills itself as “a leading authority on areas ranging from aerospace systems, computers, and telecommunications to biomedical engineering, electric power, and consumer electronics.” According to Slesin, “The committees setting the EM safety levels at the IEEE historically have been dominated by representatives from the military, companies like Raytheon and GE, the telecom companies, and now the cell-phone industry. It is basically a Trojan horse for the private sector to dictate public policy.” The IEEE’s “safe limits” for microwave exposure are considerably higher than what they should be, says Allan Frey, who was a member of the organization in the ’70s. “When it comes to this matter, the IEEE is a charade,” Frey told me.

There have been attempts over the years to set exposure limits based on something other than industry and military preference. In the ’70s and ’80s, the Environmental Protection Agency was foremost in this effort. But with Ronald Reagan in office, antiregulatory sentiment crested and the EPA’s research and standards programs were gutted.

Among the EPA’s most talented bioelectromagnetics experts at the time was Carl Blackman, who has worked at the agency since its inception in 1970. Blackman’s research at the EPA would advance much of what Allan Frey and others had discovered: The effects from EM fields were many and troubling, though far from fully understood. In 1986 the EPA killed Blackman’s research entirely. Carl Blackman believes “a decision was made to stop the civilian agencies from looking too deeply into the nonthermal health effects from exposure to EM fields. Scientists who have shown such effects over the years have been silenced, had funding taken away, been laughed at, been called charlatans and con men. The goal was to only let in scientists who would say, ‘We know that microwave ovens can cook meat, and that’s all we need to know.’ ” One veteran EPA physicist, speaking anonymously, told me, “The Department of Defense didn’t like our research because the exposure limits that we might recommend would curtail their activities.”

Industry influence appears to have permeated even the purest international watchdogs, such as the World Health Organization. Slesin unearthed a hoard of documents showing that hundreds of thousands of dollars from the cell-phone industry was doled out to WHO personnel working on wireless health effects. Some of the heaviest pressure falls on the Federal Communications Commission, for obvious reasons. In 2005 the specially appointed thirty-member Technological Advisory Council to the FCC sought to look into EM effects on human beings. According to one member of the TAC who spoke anonymously, officials at the FCC “told us we couldn’t talk about that. They would not give us any reason. The FCC people were embarrassed and terrified.”

If all this sounds like some abandoned X-Files script, consider the history of suppression of evidence in the major issues of consumer health over the past half century. Big Tobacco hid the dangers of smoking and the addictiveness of nicotine, supporting its position with countless deceptive studies. Asbestos manufacturers hid evidence that the mineral was dangerous even as tens of thousands of workers died from exposure; the makers of DDT and Agent Orange stood behind their products even as it became clear that the herbicides caused cancer. That the cell-phone industry, which last year posted revenues in the hundreds of billions of dollars, has an incentive to shut down research showing the dangers of cell-phone use is not a radical notion.

Cell towers, as you’d imagine, also emit EM radiation in the microwave spectrum, and while the science is much less exhaustive than that associated with handsets, the installations have nonetheless incited violence in various places around the globe. In Spain and Ireland, saboteurs have taken to destroying cell towers, cheered on by the communities living in their shadows. In Sydney, Australia, a retired telecom worker, convinced that cell towers had sickened him, hijacked a tank in the summer of 2007 and rammed six towers to the ground before police were able to leap into the vehicle and subdue him. In Israel, which has the seventh-highest per capita use of mobile phones in the world, attacks on towers have become a regular occurrence in recent years in both Jewish and Arab communities. Two years ago in Galilee, a Druze community protested the erection of a new tower, claiming that the towers already in their midst had caused cancer rates to skyrocket. The tower was built anyway; soon after, local teenagers

burned it down. When the police came for them, the Druze rioted, injuring more than twenty-five officers.

Here, in the U.S., there’s been very little resistance to the march of the cell towers. In fact, in Congress there’s been almost nothing but support. The Telecommunications Act of 1996—a watershed for the cell-phone industry—was the result, in part, of nearly $50 million in political contributions and lobbying largesse from the telecom industry. The prize in the TCA for telecom companies branching into wireless was a rider known as Section 704, which specifically prohibits citizens and local governments from stopping placement of a cell tower due to health concerns. Section 704 was clear: There could be no litigation to oppose cell towers because the signals make you sick.

When President Bill Clinton signed the TCA into law in February 1996, the rollout of “personal communication services,” marketed as PCS, was in full swing. By the end of the year, telecom companies had paid the federal government more than $8 billion to purchase portions of the microwave-frequency sequence. (According to the FCC, fees paid for allocation of spectrum as of 2009 amounted to $52 billion.) Almost immediately, cell-phone antennas sprang up across the country, appearing on church steeples and apartment buildings, in parks and along highways, on streetlights and clock towers and flagpoles. One industry estimate tallied 19,850 such installations in the U.S. in 1995. Today there are 247,000, most hosting multiple antennas.

In a study by researchers associated with the venerable Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, which hands out the Nobel Prize for medicine, the massive expansion of digital PCS in Sweden during 1997 was found to have coincided with a marked but subtle decline in the overall health of the population. Might it be, the Karolinska researchers asked, that Swedes fell victim to the march of the first big microwave PCS systems? The number of Swedish workers on sick leave, after declining for years, began to rise abruptly in late 1997, according to the study, doubling during the next five years. Sales of antidepressant drugs doubles during the same period. The number of deaths from Alzheimer’s disease rose sharply in 1999 and had nearly doubled by 2001. The authors of the study—Olle Johansson, a neuroscientist, and Örjan Hallberg, a former environmental manager for Ericsson, the Swedish telecommunications company—”found that for all individual counties in Sweden there was a similar precise time” when health worsened. It

occured, they said, almost simultaneously with the rollout of the new digital service. Correlation does not mean causation, but epidemiologists I spoke with say the data are strongly suggestive and need to be followed up. (In other studies at the Karolinska Institute, Johansson has posited that adverse reactions to cell-phone radiation may develop only after long periods of exposure, as the immune system fails, much in the way that allergies develop.)

All of these concerns—the danger of microwaves issuing from the phones we place next to our skulls, the danger of waves emitted by the cell towers that dot our landscapes—also apply to the Wi-Fi networks in our homes and libraries and offices and cafés and parks and neighborhoods. Wi-Fi operates typically at a frequency of 2.4 gigahertz (the same frequency as microwave ovens) but is embedded with a wider range of modulations than cell phones, because we need it to carry more data. “It never ceases to surprise me that people will fight a cell tower going up in their neighborhoods,” Blake Levitt, author of Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves, told me. “They they’ll install a Wi-Fi system in their homes. That’s like inviting a cell tower indoors.”

In the summer of 2006, a super-Wi-Fi system known as WiMAX was tested in rural Sweden. Bombarded with signals, the residents of the village of Götene—who had no knowledge that the transmitter had come online—were overcome by headaches, difficulty breathing, and blurred vision, according to a Swedish news report. Two residents reported to the hospital with heart arrhythmias, similar to those that, more than thirty years ago, Allen Frey induced in frog hearts. This happened only hours after the system was turned on, and as soon as it was powered down, the symptoms disappeared.

Today, Sprint Nextel and Clearwire are set to establish similar technology across the U.S., with a $7.2 billion government broadband stimulus speeding the rollout. A single WiMAX system would provide Internet coverage for an area of up to 75 square miles. “This means an even denser layer of radio-frequency pollution on top of what has developed over the last two decades,” Blake Levitt says. “WiMAX will require many new antennas.”

The concern about Wi-Fi is being taken seriously in Europe. In April 2008, the national library of France, citing possible “genotoxic effects,” announced it would shut down its Wi-Fi system, and the staff of the storied Library of Sainte-Geneviève in Paris followed up with a petition demanding the disconnection of Wi-Fi antennas and their replacement by wired connections. Several European governments are already moving to prohibit Wi-Fi in government buildings and on campuses, and the Austrian Medical Association is lobbying for a ban of all Wi-Fi systems in schools, citing the danger to children’s thinner skulls and developing nervous systems.

I drove down to Annapolis, Maryland, recently to visit with Allan Frey. He was preparing to set out on his forty-foot sailboat for a month at sea, so we talked at a restaurant near the marina. After retiring from full-time research in 1985, Frey, now 75, took up the philosophy of science as an avocation, looking at the question of how science progresses, how it fails to progress, how new ideas are birthed or aborted, how a shift in paradigm is a rare thing. The failure to look squarely at the dangers of microwave radiation is a case study in frozen paradigms, he said, a worldview that can’t keep pace with reality.

To illustrate what he meant, Frey held up a glass of water. “We’re all just big teacups, bags of water that you can heat up—that’s the paradigm,” he said. It’s the engineer’s paradigm, the mind-set of people who had no training in the complexity of living systems. The branches of the military, the major defense contractors, the manufacturers of microwave ovens, the telecom companies, were happy to embrace the engineer’s paradigm. The thinking was simple and easy to understand, and most important, it indemnified their operations from liability.

“It’s a very primitive mind-set,” said Frey. “Plato said we don’t see the reality; we see shadows on the cave walls. We’ve got a lot of people who are seeing shadows and saying this is the reality.” He nodded at his water glass. “We now know a human being isn’t a bag of water. A human being is a complex organization of electrical fields. Electroencephalograms and electrocardiograms, for example, measure these fields. Every cell has an electrical field across the cell membrane, which is a regulatory interface and controls what goes into and out of the cell. All nerve signals are electric. And between the nucleus and the membrane there is an electrical field, you can measure voltages of individual cells! Electricity drives biology. We evolved in a particular electromagnetic environment”—the magnetic fields from the earth’s iron core, the terrestrial magnetism from lodestones, visible light, ultraviolet frequencies, lightning—”and if we change that environment as we have, we either adapt or we have trouble.”

Later, after Frey and I parted, I walked around Annapolis and took note of the number of cell towers poised atop the buildings, the number of people who talked on their cell phones. They were everywhere, and after a while I stopped counting. At one point, I watched two women pacing in a parking lot, heads bent against their microwave transmitters. They talked and talked and aimlessly circled. When I got home, I looked up a line from Orwell that I couldn’t quite remember as I watched them, about the power that machine technology would exert over mankind. “The machine has got to be accepted, but it is probably better to accept it rather as one accepts a drug—that is, grudgingly and suspiciously,” Orwell wrote. “Like a drug, the machine is useful, dangerous and habit-forming. The oftener one surrenders to it the tighter its grip becomes.”

Modern society, needless to say, is in the grip of wireless technology. All you have to do to understand this is step outside your door. “It just so happens,” Frey had told me, “that the frequencies and modulations of our cell phones seem to be the frequencies that humans are particularly sensitive to. If we had looked into it a little more, if we had done the real science, we could have allocated spectrums that the body can’t feel. The public should know if they are taking a risk with cell phones. What we’re doing is a grand world experiment without informed consent.” As for Louis Slesin’s question—what will it take to change the paradigm?—Frey shook his head. “Until there are bodies in the streets,” he said, “I don’t think anything is going to change.”

Christopher Ketcham is a reporter in New York City. Research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.

Anything & Everything & Philosophy

You actually know the answer…but you may be afraid of it.

Sex… 10% of your life when it goes well, 90% of your life when it goes wrong.

Blessed are the cracked
for they let in the light
(unknown source)

Pain, chronic illness and weight gain; no quick fix…BUT you can manage and master them…they are life lessons about your best self.

You really are what you eat.

‘The Force’ be with you…
– Obiwan Kenobe
It really does help! Though it has not explained why, Science has now proven that belief in a force/power greater than the self seems to enable humans to tap resources of healing and resiliance that cannot be tapped if one sees only the finite nature of life.

“Nobody has ever been able to figure me out…
to my satisfaction…”   (Me :))

Before enlightenment – chop wood, carry water
After enlightment – chop wood, carry water.
(unknown eastern source)

The Spiral is not an accident; it is a mathematical fractal which is a form repeatedly adopted by nature as the most efficient for a given purpose.  Perhaps part of  ‘the logic’ behind the Spiral is strength.  I cannot think of a spiral whose focus is entropic, it is always enthalpic…and there is no limit to the scope of its organising ability…however, the entity it creates can wreak entropy on a massive scale.  Natural spirals are an inner to outer or outer to inner trajectory but you can create a ‘double-ended’ spiral…put your fingers at the centre point of a piece of cord and twist like a fork in spaghetti…you get an organising principal that begins at the centre rather than at one end…  This eventually brings two ends closer and closer together on parallel circuits…
You have one life/existence…it goes from beginning to end…or does it …?   What if  ‘life’ is a kind of energetic ‘double ended’  spiral dimension?  Nothing ever actually touches something else so…the points at which the parallels ‘touched’ randomly formed a shortcut to the future or back to the past…a kind of wormhole?   Maybe the meditation mazes we walk haven’t got it quite right…maybe we should be able to enter one end and come out another…  Maybe the Hindus and Chinese do know something…the sacred swastika, the ying/yang circle …kundalini flow…

DNA                                          The myelin sheath
Collagen                                     Curschmann’s Spirals
Nautilus                                     Conch shells
Water down the drain                         Some leaves to stems
Some petals to flowers                       The expulsive force of the whale’s uterus on giving birth
Whirlpools                                   Hurricanes
Tornadoes                                    Some galaxies

You think sound has no effect on health?  Try this…  A member of the Krebs cycle discovery team taught me biochemistry and in one session we were treated to an unusual and attractive piece of recorded music.  Source?  The structure of a molecule of human collagen.  It turns out…that when you untwist the helical five strand structure leaving fragments of the sub-molecules that bind the the five strands…in 2D, it forms a facsimile of a musical staff (the long strands) with notes (the sub-molecular links of the strands) and sounds musical if transposed as notes!  So…if ‘we are music’…why would harmony not soothe us and cacophony and violent sound not derange us?…  And if you unravel spiral collagen and get a musical pattern…and a galaxy is a spiral…the music of the orbs/stars?

If you’re that different, you may not necessarily find a mentor…
but you could probably become one… (Me)

If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same…
– Rudyard Kipling

When you’re down to nothing…
God is up to something!

Life goes on…  Are you coming?
– Billy Rayburn@Smashwords ebooks

Lady, you need to stop your dawg pooping on my lawn
My dog doesn’t do it
Really, well why don’t I put it back where it came from and see if it fits..
-an ‘ex’ 🙂