The Microwave Factor

Discuss autism theories, media stories, and efforts to put ASD on the government agenda here.

Moderator: ModeratorBill

Forum rules
Please limit quotes from articles to five paragraphs. Also, researchers may post study information here.
Josie
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:35 am

The Microwave Factor

Postby Josie » Wed May 15, 2013 7:58 pm

This is a great article explaining how autism may be linked to Wireless Technology. It was written by Nancy Sarangan a mother of an autistic child. Her daughter was not vaccinated, she was exclusively breastfed, she never had an ear infection, she never took any antibiotics, she never had dairy products, her mother avoided fish and shellfish during pregnancy and still her child was diagnosed with autism.

The name of the article is

"It Just Makes Sense – The Link Between Wireless Technology and the Rise in Autism"

By Nancy Sarangan

http://emfrefugee.blogspot.ca/2012/04/i ... tween.html
Last edited by Josie on Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Josie
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:35 am

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Josie » Tue May 21, 2013 2:19 am

I found a video explaining how wireless phones, microwaves, baby moniters, etc. can cause harm to the cells in our bodies. It is very similar to many of the problems we see in children with autism.

Here is the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVV8uT-BJPs

here is one on cordless phones

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjYPzgKI6V0

Here is another great link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBkb1WbuzvI

This one is from the bodyecology website.

http://bodyecology.com/articles/little- ... ZvvHEpHOSo
Last edited by Josie on Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:41 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Willsmom
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:32 pm

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Willsmom » Tue May 21, 2013 9:28 pm

Did she have vaccines herself? What about amalgams? did her parents have Hg exposure? Not doubting that microwaves are not good for us, but there's a lot we don't know here.

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Winnie » Tue May 21, 2013 10:26 pm

Willsmom wrote:Did she have vaccines herself? What about amalgams? did her parents have Hg exposure? Not doubting that microwaves are not good for us, but there's a lot we don't know here.


Or some actual factors that have been associated with autism (and other disabilities), like advanced maternal age?
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Winnie » Tue May 21, 2013 10:41 pm

Both Sinatra's youtube pitch and the other internet sales site have all the obvious flags of quackery. Look up the research yourself.

I didn't spend a lot of time looking up these studies, other than the first 2006 brain tumor one from Sweden, but hyperlinks to the others can be accessed from this article found here:

http://www.skepdic.com/emf.html

"There is also a strong contingent of folks hell-bent on proving this link, so it is likely that studies will continue to be done that support a contrary viewpoint. For example, a research team in Sweden found an increased risk for brain tumors in people who used cellular or cordless phones (2006). The study was a small one and assessed exposure by self-administered questionnaires. On the other hand, a large Danish study (420,000 mobile phone users) found neither long nor short-term mobile phone use to be associated with an increased risk of cancer (2006). The Danish study did not use the memories of the subjects to assess exposure; they analyzed data from mobile phone company records. Another small Swedish study found no increased risk of acoustic neuroma related to short-term mobile phone use (2004). The researchers thought that their data suggest an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years duration. They don't say how they measured exposure, but they note that "detailed information about mobile phone use and other environmental exposures was collected." Other studies on laboratory animals have found effects from microwave exposure (2003; 2006; 2007). Some studies have collected data suggestive of possible harmful effects from cell phone microwave exposure, but they are too small to have ruled out chance or other causal agents (2006) or they have not been tested on in vivo cells (2004; 2006a; 2006b).

Recently, the alarm has been raised by some who fear that damage might be done to our brains from being exposed to Wi-Fi. Despite the fact that modulated frequencies bringing radio and television transmissions into our homes are stronger and more pervasive than the radio waves used by wireless networks, there has been little call to reduce radio or TV transmission. (The power levels for Wi-Fi are lower than that for cell phones, by the way. Photons of visible light carry more energy than microwaves and bombard us much more frequently than microwaves from such things as cell phones or wireless networks. Microwave ovens are "tuned for optimal water absorption, which happens to be about 2.45 gigahertz."* Despite numerous scare stories about the effects of microwaved water and food on people, animals, and plants, you can't do anything to food or water with a microwave oven that you couldn't also do in a conventional oven with infrared waves,* assuming you use the ovens as intended. Microwaved food is safe and poses no health hazard.)"


You can probably make something yourself that is just as effective as a gadget sold on the internet.

Image
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

Josie
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:35 am

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Josie » Wed May 22, 2013 12:42 am

How can we be sure it is quackery? Even the experts are stating that existing public safety limits are inadequate to protect public health.

The following was taken from the website http://www.bioinitiative.org


The 2007 BioInitiative Report was prepared by world- recognized experts in science and public health policy. Outside reviewers also contributed valuable content and perspective. It was concluded even in 2007 that existing public safety limits were inadequate to protect public health, and agreed that new, biologically- based public safety limits were needed five years ago. The public health cost of doing nothing was judged to be unacceptable in 2007. This did nothing to change the rules, nor roll back the technology tsunami of wireless-everywhere.

The levels of exposure we face in 2012 are higher, and have crept into every day life, even for children. The levels at which undesirable effects on health and well-being are seen is much lower. The levels of concern at have dropped lower in 2012 by 10s to 100s of times. There is much greater involuntary exposure, and it is nearly unavoidable even for people who choose not to ‘go wireless’ (second-hand radiation effects). Safe forms of communication by land-line telephone are being phased out without general public knowledge or agreement. There is no informed consent for consumers (warning labels on cell phones, for example, have been defeated by telecom industry lobby groups). It is still difficult or impossible for a consumer to get reliable information on levels of exposure from wireless devices, It is simply beyond the reach of people to identify where excessively high levels of exposure occur in their communities, and it is very rare for a county or state health department to accommodate requests for information or provide measurements.

Today the evidence is stronger than ever and it may be placing people at risk, but most people have no idea. There is little indication that cell phone users (whose numbers have risen from roughly 2 billion in 2006 to 6 billion users globally in 2012) are aware of the risks. In that time, whole-body exposures from other RFR sources like WI-FI, WI-MAX, smart grids using wireless utility meters, and vast commercial applications of wireless RFR (in commerce, transportation, in banking, in surveillance and monitoring, in medical imaging and ironically in health care record-keeping and learning environments for education – all these new applications of wireless over wired communications and data transmission add to the RFR saturation in cities. Wireless laptops and wireless internet in schools, and home offices and for homework mean even more chronic exposures to RFR, a designated IARC 2B Possible Human Carcinogen (May 31, 2011).

Read the rest of this report on the following link


http://www.bioinitiative.org/participan ... ke-action/

kulkulkan
Posts: 2075
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:37 pm

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby kulkulkan » Wed May 22, 2013 1:41 am

Thanks for posting the link to bio initiative 2012. Was surprised to see over 500 pages of research abstracts on this topic.

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Winnie » Wed May 22, 2013 1:57 am

Josie wrote:How can we be sure it is quackery? Even the experts are stating that existing public safety limits are inadequate to protect public health.


Stuff like this, from one of the sales sites you described as a "great link" that I was referring to, has all the flags of quackery:

"When he does a home assessment, he shows his clients the difference between the earth’s healing electromagnetic fields and the EMFs that produce negative health results. He also tests each family member’s physical exposure to the EMFs in their home. From there, he works with them to create a plan to reduce EMFs.

Roy says, “I show my clients what happens by measuring their body voltage with the earth’s natural voltage. When you are outside, your body comes into resonance with the earth’s natural voltage. When you walk into your house, your body is actually the most conductive thing in your house, which means the EMFs are attracted right to you...and your voltage shoots up. My equipment shows that change.”

So did the Sinatra youtube explanation/sales pitch.
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

Josie
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:35 am

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Josie » Wed May 22, 2013 12:53 pm

Winnie wrote:
Josie wrote:How can we be sure it is quackery? Even the experts are stating that existing public safety limits are inadequate to protect public health.


Stuff like this, from one of the sales sites you described as a "great link" that I was referring to, has all the flags of quackery:

"When he does a home assessment, he shows his clients the difference between the earth’s healing electromagnetic fields and the EMFs that produce negative health results. He also tests each family member’s physical exposure to the EMFs in their home. From there, he works with them to create a plan to reduce EMFs.

Roy says, “I show my clients what happens by measuring their body voltage with the earth’s natural voltage. When you are outside, your body comes into resonance with the earth’s natural voltage. When you walk into your house, your body is actually the most conductive thing in your house, which means the EMFs are attracted right to you...and your voltage shoots up. My equipment shows that change.”

So did the Sinatra youtube explanation/sales pitch.


I gave two links and I think you are quoting from the second link I provided (the bodyecology website link). I believe Dr. Sinatra (the youtube video from my first link) is a heart specialist and is not selling anything related to this subject. He has many youtube videos on the internet regarding health and nutrition. Roy’s work is scientific testing of the electromagnetic fields in and around people's homes for people who are sensitive. I am not trying to convince anyone to believe in what Roy is saying but for those who are less skeptical it is a great link for information.

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Winnie » Wed May 22, 2013 2:06 pm

Josie wrote:I gave two links and I think you are quoting from the second link I provided (the bodyecology website link). I believe Dr. Sinatra (the youtube video from my first link) is a heart specialist and is not selling anything related to this subject. He has many youtube videos on the internet regarding health and nutrition.


He is also very much an internet salesman -- really easy to trip across his large internet sales site.

As for the gadget he uses to make scary claims in the youtube you linked, what validates his claims about the gadget detecting danger from cell phone use?
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

Josie
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:35 am

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Josie » Wed May 22, 2013 5:32 pm

Winnie wrote:

As for the gadget he uses to make scary claims in the youtube you linked, what validates his claims about the gadget detecting danger from cell phone use?


He is using an Electrosmog Dectector. You don't need to use an electrosmog detector to know that cell phones next to your ear are harmful.

Apple says your iPhone should come no closer to your body than 5/8 of an inch ( 1.6 cm ).
BlackBerry recommends about an inch ( 2.5 cm ). If there were no danger why would they say this?

Josie
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:35 am

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Josie » Fri May 24, 2013 12:21 am

Here is an article supporting Nancy Sarangan's view that there is a link between wireless technology and autism.

Autism Linked to Electromagnetic Fields?
by Milt Bowling
Source: Health Action Magazine, Winter 2007-08

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), once an extremely rare condition, has increased to epidemic proportions over the past 20 years. A new study in the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutrition and Environmental Medicine (November 2007) indicates that the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in our environment may have something to do with ASD increase. In the study, conducted by researchers Tamara J. Mariea and George L. Carlo, the exponential increase in background electromagnetic fields, such as those caused by cell phone towers, shows a parallel increase in ASD.

Autism, the fastest-growing developmental disability in North America according to the Autism Society of America, is a chronic, disabling neurodegenerative disorder and has increased almost six-fold since the 1970s, with the greatest increase in the past decade. In Canada, autism is the most widely diagnosed neurological disorder, with an estimated one in every 166 children affected. While autism's effects are individual, some common issues involve challenges in communicating, socializing and interacting.

The US National Autism Association states, "The autism epidemic is real and not due to changes in diagnosis, population changes, nor is it explained by other factors." Atypical brain development, food allergies, poor nutrition, childhood vaccinations, and genetics have all been considered as causative.

Mariea, who has operated the Internal Balance Clinic in Tennessee since 2000 where she has treated more than 500 children with ASD, says she had an epiphany of sorts in 2005, when she became aware of adverse health effects of EMFs. According to her study coauthor, Dr. George Carlo, the body's built-in protective mechanism causes the membranes of our cells to close its transport channels whenever wireless signal information is detected. This reaction prevents nutrients from entering the cell, and also prevents toxins from being expelled. Inter cellular communication is disrupted, messages are not carried to the immune, nervous
or endocrine systems, and a diseased state evolves.

Mariea had the EMF levels in her clinic minimized. Without changing anything else in her patient's treatment protocol, she noticed a remarkable change in the children in a relatively short time. With less EMF interruptions, symptoms improved. Non-verbal kids began to speak. Mariea kept impeccable data, including urine, stool, and hair samples, and discovered that molecules of heavy metals were showing up in an interesting order. The smaller heavy metal molecules were excreted first. As the cell membrane transport channels gradually enlarged, returning to their normal function, the metals were excreted according to molecular weight, with large molecules like aluminum and mercury being excreted after a few months.

The authors admit that this study, linking wireless technology-related EMFs in the environment to autism, is the first of its kind, and call for other clinicians and scientists to assess and corroborate these findings. With the severity of this burden on the children, their families and society as a whole, this study provides an important, potential new avenue into the treatment and prevention of this serious condition.

HANS consultant and member Milt Bowling is President of the Clean Energy Foundation, which works with the public, industry and government for better regulation and safer technology.

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Winnie » Fri May 24, 2013 1:42 am

Josie wrote:
Winnie wrote:As for the gadget he uses to make scary claims in the youtube you linked, what validates his claims about the gadget detecting danger from cell phone use?


He is using an Electrosmog Dectector.


The "Detect and Protect" site that sells Electrosmog Detectors features a big pic of Sinatra "highly" recommending this gadget.


You don't need to use an electrosmog detector to know that cell phones next to your ear are harmful.


I agree that I don't need an Electrosmog Detector. But you know "that cell phones next to your ear are harmful?" How so?

What you have put forth so far are a few sales sites promoting questionable gadgets and services based on unfounded claims. And a huge pdf file that supposedly supports the claim that cell phones are causing harm but that you didn't read. If you want to discuss legitimate studies that show cell phone or EMF harm, then post them. But also post the larger better-designed studies that do not support this notion.

I don’t think that toddlers develop autism by holding cell phones too close to their ears or abusing the text plan. Cell phones certainly can be dangerous – even deadly -- to toddlers, if the driver of the car they happen to be a passenger in is using one while driving. Or if a driver in a nearby vehicle is distracted by using his own cell phone.

But I don’t see cell phones or wireless technology (or cars) being reined in anytime in the near future based on the notion of autism causation since the evidence does not appear to be there. It is possible that legit research in the future will show us more about the potential health effects of EMFs, but I really doubt this will be a big player in the causation arena.

Radiation-Emitting Products

Current Research Results

Is there a connection between certain health problems and exposure to radiofrequency fields via cell phone use?
The results of most studies conducted to date indicate that there is not. In addition, attempts to replicate and confirm the few studies that did show a connection have failed.


According to current data, the FDA believes that the weight of scientific evidence does not show an association between exposure to radiofrequency from cell phones and adverse health outcomes. Still, there is consensus that additional research is warranted to address gaps in knowledge, such as the effects of cell phone use over the long-term and on pediatric populations.

Continues, with list of ongoing studies:

http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/ucm116335.htm

Significant Ongoing Studies

International Cohort Study on Mobile Phone Users (COSMOS)
The COSMOS study aims to conduct long-term health monitoring of a large group of people to determine if there are any health issues linked with long-term exposure to radiofrequency energy from cell phone use. The COSMOS study will follow approximately 300,000 adult cell phone users in Europe for 20 to 30 years. Additional information about the COSMOS study can be found at http://www.ukcosmos.org/index.html3.

Risk of brain cancer from exposure to radiofrequency fields in childhood and adolescence (MOBI-KIDS)
MOBI-KIDS is an international study investigating the relationship between exposure to radiofrequency energy from communication technologies, including cell phones, and brain cancer in young people. This is an international, multi-center study involving 14 European and non-European countries. Additional information about MOBI-KIDS can be found at http://www.creal.cat/programes-recerca/ ... php?ID=394

Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program of the National Cancer Institute
The SEER Program of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) actively follows cancer statistics in the United States. If cell phones play a role in increasing the risk of brain cancer, rates would be expected to increase. However, between 1987 and 2008, SEER data shows that despite the sharp increase in heavy cell phone use in the U.S., the overall age-adjusted incidence of brain cancer did not increase. Additional information about SEER can be found at http://seer.cancer.gov/5.

Cell Phone Industry Actions

Although the existing scientific data do not support a change in FDA regulation of cell phones, the FDA has urged the cell phone industry to take a number of steps, including:

• Support additional research on possible biological effects of radiofrequency fields for the type of signal emitted by cell phones;
• Improve cell phone design by minimizing radiofrequency exposure to the user; and
• Cooperate in providing cell phone users with the latest scientific information on health concerns caused by radiofrequency exposure.



From the National Cancer Institute: Cell Phones and Cancer Risk

Full article with links to citations: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

4.What has research shown about the possible cancer-causing effects of radiofrequency energy?

Although there have been some concerns that radiofrequency energy from cell phones held closely to the head may affect the brain and other tissues, to date there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer.

It is generally accepted that damage to DNA is necessary for cancer to develop. However, radiofrequency energy, unlike ionizing radiation, does not cause DNA damage in cells, and it has not been found to cause cancer in animals or to enhance the cancer-causing effects of known chemical carcinogens in animals (3–5).

Researchers have carried out several types of epidemiologic studies to investigate the possibility of a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of malignant (cancerous) brain tumors, such as gliomas, as well as benign (noncancerous) tumors, such as acoustic neuromas (tumors in the cells of the nerve responsible for hearing), most meningiomas (tumors in the meninges, membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord), and parotid gland tumors (tumors in the salivary glands) (6).

In one type of study, called a case-control study, cell phone use is compared between people with these types of tumors and people without them. In another type of study, called a cohort study, a large group of people is followed over time and the rate of these tumors in people who did and didn’t use cell phones is compared. Cancer incidence data can also be analyzed over time to see if the rates of cancer changed in large populations during the time that cell phone use increased dramatically. The results of these studies have generally not provided clear evidence of a relationship between cell phone use and cancer, but there have been some statistically significant findings in certain subgroups of people.

Findings from specific research studies are summarized below:

The Interphone Study, conducted by a consortium of researchers from 13 countries, is the largest health-related case-control study of use of cell phones and head and neck tumors. Most published analyses from this study have shown no statistically significant increases in brain or central nervous system cancers related to higher amounts of cell phone use. One recent analysis showed a statistically significant, albeit modest, increase in the risk of glioma among the small proportion of study participants who spent the most total time on cell phone calls. However, the researchers considered this finding inconclusive because they felt that the amount of use reported by some respondents was unlikely and because the participants who reported lower levels of use appeared to have a reduced risk of brain cancer (7–9). Another recent study from the group found no relationship between brain tumor locations and regions of the brain that were exposed to the highest level of radiofrequency energy from cell phones (10).
A cohort study in Denmark linked billing information from more than 358,000 cell phone subscribers with brain tumor incidence data from the Danish Cancer Registry. The analyses found no association between cell phone use and the incidence of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, even among people who had been cell phone subscribers for 13 or more years (11–13).

Early case-control studies in the United States, Europe, and Japan were unable to demonstrate a relationship between cell phone use and glioma or meningioma (14).

Some case-control studies in Sweden found statistically significant trends of increasing brain cancer risk for the total amount of cell phone use and the years of use among people who began using cell phones before age 20 (15).

However, another large, case-control study in Sweden did not find an increased risk of brain cancer among people between the ages of 20 and 69 (16). In addition, the international CEFALO study, which compared children who were diagnosed with brain cancer between ages 7 and 19 with similar children who were not, found no relationship between their cell phone use and risk for brain cancer (17).

NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, which tracks cancer incidence in the United States over time, found no increase in the incidence of brain or other central nervous system cancers between 1987 and 2007, despite the dramatic increase in cell phone use in this country during that time (18, 19). Similarly, incidence data from Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden for the period 1974–2008 revealed no increase in age-adjusted incidence of brain tumors (20, 21). A 2012 study by NCI researchers, which compared observed glioma incidence rates in SEER with projected rates based on risks observed in the Interphone study (8), found that the projected rates were consistent with observed U.S. rates. The researchers also compared the SEER rates with projected rates based on a Swedish study published in 2011 (15). They determined that the projected rates were at least 40 percent higher than, and incompatible with, the actual U.S. rates.

Studies of workers exposed to radiofrequency energy have shown no evidence of increased risk of brain tumors among U.S. Navy electronics technicians, aviation technicians, or fire control technicians, those working in an electromagnetic pulse test program, plastic-ware workers, cellular phone manufacturing workers, or Navy personnel with a high probability of exposure to radar (6).
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

Josie
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:35 am

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Josie » Fri May 24, 2013 2:34 am

Winnie

I am not saying I agree there is a link between autism and wireless technology, I am saying it is a possibility. For those who might be interested I am providing articles and opinions that support it. I am glad you are taking an interest. Your opinion is appreciated.

amndzon
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:05 am

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby amndzon » Fri May 24, 2013 6:54 pm

Josie,

There might be something to what you say, i'm not sure.

However, slightly on topic, maybe... I read in consumer report's a few months ago that plants that were grown in water that was microwaved didn't do so well as those who were grown in tap water. My daughter for her science fair this year put it to the test. She grew identical number of pea plants from seed, in the same amount of soil, in identical pots with identical amounts of sun light. She had three types of water though. The first was tap water, the second was water that was boiled for 10 minutes, and the third was water that had been microwaved for ten minutes. All were cooled to the same temp and the same amounts were used for the plants. The plants that received the microwaved water were 20 cm less in height and had the fewest sprouts. The regular tap water grew in the middle and the boiled water did the best with the sturdiest, longest sprouts at the greatest length and number.

We weren't sure why the boiled water did the best, but it makes me think twice when I heat up a cup of water for tea and I now reach for the kettle instead using the microwave.

Josie
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:35 am

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Josie » Fri May 24, 2013 7:30 pm

amndzon

Thanks for that information. I also heard that microwaved water grew smaller plants with fewer fruit. I think the experiment I read about was done with green pepper plants and the one with microwaved water was smaller and only produced one pepper. The plant had only a few blossoms and the fruit on the plant was a purplish color (not green). There is definitely something unhealthy about this water. I often use the microwave to heat up my cold coffee in the morning. I won't do that again.

I found a a website with some good information on microwaves and it warns about prolonged exposure to microwaves. It said it is known to cause "cataracts" in your eyes, which is a clouding of the lens, preventing you from seeing clearly and they warned of not making a habit of pressing your face against the microwave oven door to see if your food's ready. I had not heard of that before, and this is what it said about cell phones

"Recent research indicates that microwaves from mobile phones can affect parts of your brain - after all, you're holding the transmitter right by your head. Other research is inconclusive, although there is a feeling that you're more vulnerable if you're young and your brain is still growing."

You can read more about microwaves at this website

http://www.darvill.clara.net/emag/emagmicro.htm
Last edited by Josie on Sat May 25, 2013 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Winnie » Fri May 24, 2013 8:31 pm

Josie wrote:I found a a website with some good information on microwaves. It warns about prolonged exposure to microwaves. It said it is known to cause "cataracts" in your eyes, which is a clouding of the lens, preventing you from seeing clearly and they warned of not making a habit of pressing your face against the microwave oven door to see if your food's ready. I had not heard of that before, and this is what it said about cell phones

"Recent research indicates that microwaves from mobile phones can affect parts of your brain - after all, you're holding the transmitter right by your head. Other research is inconclusive, although there is a feeling that you're more vulnerable if you're young and your brain is still growing."

You can read more about microwaves at this website

http://www.darvill.clara.net/emag/emagmicro.htm



Josie, that is a webpage by a teacher for 3rd and 4th graders to learn about the about the electromagnetic spectrum (Andy Darvill -- online learning - key stage 3 and 4 science).

Grownups who want accurate and more detailed info about microwaves and microwave safety (and who are beyond pressing their faces against the microwave anyway) can just go here to read:

Radiation-Emitting Products: Microwave Oven Radiation

http://www.fda.gov/radiation-emittingproducts/resourcesforyouradiationemittingproducts/ucm252762.htm

"Much research is under way on microwaves and how they might affect the human body. It is known that microwave radiation can heat body tissue the same way it heats food. Exposure to high levels of microwaves can cause a painful burn. The lens of the eye is particularly sensitive to intense heat, and exposure to high levels of microwaves can cause cataracts. Likewise, the testes are very sensitive to changes in temperature. Accidental exposure to high levels of microwave energy can alter or kill sperm, producing temporary sterility. But these types of injuries - burns, cataracts, temporary sterility - can only be caused by exposure to large amounts of microwave radiation, much more than the 5mW limit for microwave oven leakage."


The teacher who put up the site you recommended should do so as well. Third and fourth grade students won't check the accuracy of his "facts" -- they just assume it is true.
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

Josie
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:35 am

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Josie » Fri May 24, 2013 9:08 pm

Thanks Winnie

I will be more careful where I take my quotes from. The person I was making my comments to had a daughter in a science fair and she was using microwaved water for her project. I thought it might be a good place for information for them.
Last edited by Josie on Sun May 26, 2013 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Josie
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:35 am

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Josie » Sat May 25, 2013 4:07 pm

According to this report cell phones and microwaves are not so harmless. It appears cell phone radiation could be a risk for tumors.



Italian Supreme Court Affirms Tumor Risk from Long-Term Use of a Cell Phone

"The Supreme Court of Italy has affirmed a ruling granting worker's compensation to a businessman who developed a tumor after using a cell phone for 12 years. This is the first time that a high court —in any country— has ruled in favor a link between mobile phone radiation and tumor development."


Read more here


http://microwavenews.com/news-center/it ... tumor-risk

Josie
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:35 am

Re: The Microwave Factor

Postby Josie » Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:43 pm

I found this website on Dr. Neil Cherry. If you are interested in environmental health you may find it interesting.

Here is some information taken from his website and at the bottom is a link to his main webpage.

Cherry (2002) predicted that since electrical workers and physiotherapists are occupationally exposed to electromagnetic fields that are about a million times higher than the Schumann Resonance signal, would have higher rates of cancer, cardiac reproductive and neurological effects. Multiple independent epidemiological studies confirm that this is true. It is also scientifically sensible and proven that placing a cellular telephone next to your head, producing a signal around a billion times stronger than the Schumann Resonance signal, causes serious alterations of brain activity, leading to elevated rates of a road accidents, headaches, nausea, dizziness, loss of concentration and memory, DNA damage and enhanced cell death rates, and significant increases in brain cancer rates. All of this is confirmed by many published studies. Biological organs, including the brain, are flexible, variable and adoptive biological organs. For the brain s electromagnetic thinking activity to be coherent and stable enough for intelligence to develop, Dr Cherry had concluded that the ELF synchronization of the brain electromagnetic activity by the Schumann Resonance Signal in a has provided a mechanism that allowed intelligence to develop.



Back in 1994 Dr Cherry was invited by a local primary school (Opawa) to present information on the possible health effects of a cell site that was proposed to be installed next to the infant department of the school. He explained to the school meeting that the law contains the precautionary approach of having to deal with potential adverse effects on the environment including people and children. Integrating his knowledge from classical physics involving resonant absorption, showed that the frequency of the cellphone radiation produced a half wavelength that match the child's size. Therefore children were highly vulnerable for any possible health effects. He therefore recommended that the school declined the offer. The school voted by over 80 percent to reject the offer to install a cell site adjacent to the infant teaching block.




Most of Professor Cherry's research was focused on the health effects of electromagnetic fields and radiation.

Here is the website

http://www.neilcherry.com/documents.php


Return to “Autism Articles, Studies & Politics”