Is 5g Technology Bad For Our Health?

Is 5g Technology Bad For Our Health?

Is 5G technology bad for our health?
As 5G wireless technology is slowly making its way across the globe, many government agencies and organizations advise that there is no reason to be alarmed about the effects of radiofrequency waves on our health. But some experts strongly disagree.
“Further experimental and epidemiologic studies are urgently needed in order to better and fully explore the health effects caused in humans by the exposure to generic or specific […] RF-EMF frequencies in different age groups and with increasing exposure density.”
Dr. Agostino Di Ciaula
Check out the full article here: Medical News Today 
The Wireless Wireless Wild West

The Wireless Wireless Wild West

A new rule enables installation of harmful radiation transmitting antennas on homes, and to extend wireless data/voice services including 5G and satellites, to users on neighboring properties.
Therefore, people adversely affected will have no right to object or prevent these antennas’ installation, even though they will be involuntarily exposed to harmful radiation.
“This rule allows a wireless ‘Wild West,’ and will cause irreparable harm to the many who have already become injured by wireless”
says Dafna Tachover, CHD’s 5G and wireless harms project director. Because OTARD (Over-the-Air Reception Devices rule) preempts federal and state civil rights laws that protect the disabled, those injured will not be able to obtain accommodations and families will be forced out of their homes with nowhere to go.
The most insidious aspect of OTARD is that it eliminates all state and local zoning authority over these arrangements. No permit is required, deed and homeowners’ association restrictions or any other state laws are preempted. No notice to neighboring property owners is required.
Need to know more? Source article here:

 

Digital Dementia

Digital Dementia

 Overuse Of Technology Can Lead To

Have you ever heard a scatter-brained, stressed out friend mutter ‘I have such ADD today’? It’s become all too common to dismiss our flustered, uninterrupted lives as just part of the everyday new normal. Undeniably, modern society is dictated by our constant connection to technology. Plain and simple, we are married to it – for better or worse. But it’s actually quite serious. In fact, more and more young people who’ve been raised in a digital age are showing signs of short term memory dysfunction as a result of their addiction to technology. What can be done and what does this mean for future generations?

An eye-opening study in Seoul, Korea – where more people are connected to digital devices (over 67%) than anywhere in the world –  as well as U.S. study conducted at UCLA has revealed some alarming information about the developing brains of young people.  They’re spending upwards of 7 hours a day attached to their iPads, smartphones, computers and gaming consoles. And the effects to their brains are proving to be very damaging.

It’s Called Digital Dementia

“Digital Dementia”, a term coined by top German neuroscientist Manfred Spitzer in his 2012 book of the same name, is a term used to describe how overuse of digital technology is resulting in the breakdown of cognitive abilities in a way that is more commonly seen in people who have suffered a head injury or psychiatric illness.

Have you ever heard a scatter-brained, stressed out friend mutter ‘I have such ADD today’? It’s become all too common to dismiss our flustered, uninterrupted lives as just part of the everyday new normal. Undeniably, modern society is dictated by our constant connection to technology. Plain and simple, we are married to it – for better or worse. But it’s actually quite serious. In fact, more and more young people who’ve been raised in a digital age are showing signs of short term memory dysfunction as a result of their addiction to technology. What can be done and what does this mean for future generations?

An eye-opening study in Seoul, Korea – where more people are connected to digital devices (over 67%) than anywhere in the world –  as well as U.S. study conducted at UCLA has revealed some alarming information about the developing brains of young people.  They’re spending upwards of 7 hours a day attached to their iPads, smartphones, computers and gaming consoles. And the effects to their brains are proving to be very damaging

Individuals who rely heavily on technology may suffer deterioration in cerebral performance such as short term memory dysfunction. While many of us grew up remembering phone numbers and other key information simply by memorizing it, most kids today have grown up not needing to remember things like phone numbers because we have devices that do it for us.

“Over-use of smartphones and game devices hampers the balanced development of the brain,” Byun Gi-won, a doctor at the Balance Brain Center in Seoul, told the JoongAng Daily newspaper.

It may seem like an easy way out, but can lead to development of the rational, linear, fact-finding skills of the left side of the brain at the expense of the right side which is more intuitive, imaginative and emotional.

The U.S. study blamed modern lifestyles for the problem –  saying that spending time on a computer and texting prevents people focusing and memorizing information.

They also blamed stress, saying hectic lifestyles prevent concentration information retention.

A growing number of adults, too, are susceptible to constant connection and overuse of technology which can lead to lateralization of brain function  which means the brain suffers imbalance. Damage to the right side of the brain is associated with deficits in ability to concentrate, short attention, memory span, and emotional disturbances, such as depression.

How many of us have a smartphone filled with our contacts whose phone numbers we can readily access but we don’t truly know? Or what if we can’t remember the name of the lead actress in a favorite film? Instead of spending the extra few minutes to recall that information organically — by accessing our natural memory and using our brain — we just go look it up on Google.

We’ve become terrifyingly dependent upon technology to the point that we are ruining our brains.

Can Digital Dementia Be Reversed?

Current thinking seems to say it can. So that means that many of us, including kids who grew up with technology and those of us who adopted it in our later lives as part of living in the modern world, may not be destined to digital dementia indefinitely after. But if we are to reverse the damage, we must take an active — rather than passive — role in the health of our brains.

And we need to start right now.

So how can we do this? Manfred Spitzer asserts that all digital technology should be removed from classrooms. That seems unlikely. But, according to neurologist Dr. Carolyn Brockington from St. Luke’s Roosevelt Medical Center in New York City, we can do other things simply by ‘exercising our brains.’ For example,

1. Use Your Head. Retrieve information from your brain organically – rather than automatically turning to Google to look up that actress you can’t remember immediately. Sit there and concentrate until you can recall it.

2. Crack Open a Book. That’s right. Reading an actual book rather than a tablet has been shown to improve memory retention.

3. Learn a new language. Putting you outside your comfort zone helps your brain work harder, which makes you smarter.

4. Play a new instrument. Instruments require the use of both side of the brain – like the piano or the guitar, for example, which help strengthen and balance it.

5. Get physical. Physical exercise increases blood flow and accelerates the transport of vital nutrients to your brain.

Essentially, we need to be doing anything that can lead to the healthy restructuring or ‘rewiring’ of our brains. We need to be spending less time relying on technology and more time relying on our brain power.

What Can You Do Today?

Use it or lose it, the experts contend. The brain, just like a muscle in our body, can atrophy if we don’t use it.

Perhaps consider a digital sabbatical — like Baratunde Thurston did which was famously published in Fast Company last summer. Although it’s not easy or ideal for most of us who are ‘plugged in’ due to our jobs and the needs of the modern world, we should, at the very least unplug during the weekend. Work can — and should — wait. Facebook can wait. If we focus instead on having real conversations, reading books, getting out into nature, and disconnecting from technology, we will be taking care of our brain health and our emotional health as well.

SOURCE ARTICLE HERE

A Screen-Free Holiday In 2020

A screen-free holiday in 2020 may sound crazy, but this year of all years is a good time to re-center and focus on what really matters: your loved ones right in front of you.

A compromise could be that at the beginning of the day you do all your scheduled calls, especially family video calls, and the remainder of the day is just for the people you’re with right now.

But I urge you to try it, and think you’ll be pleasantly surprised. Instead of focusing on how inconvenient it will be to lose the screens, focus on the benefits of reclaiming yours or your child’s brain, body and spirit.  Screens and electronic gadgets aren’t going anywhere, but time is precious and fleeting—and there’s nothing like the New Year to remind us of this.  In our hurried and hectic lives, we should use the holidays as a time to reflect on what we want for us and our children, and stop and let them smell the roses.

The benefits of limiting screentime are numerous including:

  • Improved sleep: more time spent in the deep stages of sleep (3 &4); reduced muscle tone during sleep; melatonin (sleep chemical) levels return to normal, which in turn affect serotonin  balance (mood and sense of well-being)
  • Reduction of neuropsychiatric phenomenon, like tics, seizures (all kinds), and headaches
  • Improved blood flow to the frontal lobe and to vital organs
  • Decreased time spent in fight-or-flight, and more time spent in healing states
  • Brighter, more relaxed mood
  • Improved sportsmanship (tolerates losing better, less cheating etc)
  • Increased creativity and interest in physical play
  • Improved eye contact and verbal conversation
  • Enhanced empathy (yes, this can happen after only a couple of weeks!)
  • Renewed interest in old activities (legos, models, sports, board games, jewelry making, puzzles, etc, being with family)

Source: Psychology Today

 

Screen Kids

In this digital age, children spend more time interacting with screens and less time playing outside, reading a book, or interacting with family. Though technology has its benefits, it also has its harms.

In Screen Kids, Gary Chapman and Arlene Pellicane will empower you with the tools you need to make positive changes. Through stories, science, and wisdom, you’ll discover how to take back your home from an overdependence on screens. Plus, you’ll learn to teach the five A+ skills that every child needs to master: affection, appreciation, anger management, apology, and attention.

Now is the time to equip your child with a healthy relationship with screens and an even healthier relationship with others. Technology has helped children stay in school during the pandemic. But what are the hidden costs of so much screen time? On the next Building Relationships with Dr. Gary Chapman, author and speaker Arlene Pellicane will help parents and grandparents who are struggling with this topic. What are the skills every child needs in a tech-driven world? Hear a practical program on this edition of Building Relationships with Dr. Gary Chapman.

 

 

COVID Tracing- A Privacy Minefield

WHEN THE NOTION of enlisting smartphones to help fight the Covid-19 pandemic first surfaced last spring, it sparked a months-long debate: Should apps collect location data, which could help with contact tracing but potentially reveal sensitive information? Or should they take a more limited approach, only measuring Bluetooth-based proximity to other phones? Now, a broad survey of hundreds of Covid-related apps reveals that the answer is all of the above. And that’s made the Covid app ecosystem a kind of wild, sprawling landscape, full of potential privacy pitfalls.

Late last month Jonathan Albright, director of the Digital Forensics Initiative at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism, released the results of his analysis of 493 Covid-related iOS apps across dozens of countries. His study of those apps, which tackle everything from symptom-tracking to telehealth consultations to contact tracing, catalogs the data permissions each one requests. At WIRED’s request, Albright then broke down the data set further to focus specifically on the 359 apps that handle contact tracing, exposure notification, screening, reporting, workplace monitoring, and Covid information from public health authorities around the globe.

The results show that only 47 of that subset of 359 apps use Google and Apple’s more privacy-friendly exposure-notification system, which restricts apps to only Bluetooth data collection. More than six out of seven Covid-focused iOS apps worldwide are free to request whatever privacy permissions they want, with 59 percent asking for a user’s location when in use and 43 percent tracking location at all times. Albright found that 44 percent of Covid apps on iOS asked for access to the phone’s camera, 22 percent of apps asked for access to the user’s microphone, 32 percent asked for access to their photos, and 11 percent asked for access to their contacts.

“It’s hard to justify why a lot of these apps would need your constant location, your microphone, your photo library,” Albright says. He warns that even for Covid-tracking apps built by universities or government agencies—often at the local level—that introduces the risk that private data, sometimes linked with health information, could end up out of users’ control. “We have a bunch of different, smaller public entities that are more or less developing their own apps, sometimes with third parties. And we don’t we don’t know where the data’s going.”

The relatively low number of apps that use Google and Apple’s exposure-notification API compared to the total number of Covid apps shouldn’t be seen as a failure of the companies’ system, Albright points out. While some public health authorities have argued that collecting location data is necessary for contact tracing, Apple and Google have made clear that their protocol is intended for the specific purpose of “exposure notification”—alerting users directly to their exposure to other users who have tested positive for Covid-19. That excludes the contact tracing, symptom checking, telemedicine, and Covid information and news that other apps offer. The two tech companies have also restricted access to their system to public health authorities, which has limited its adoption by design.

But Albright’s data nonetheless shows that many US states, local governments, workplaces, and universities have opted to build their own systems for Covid tracking, screening, reporting, exposure alerts, and quarantine monitoring, perhaps in part due to Apple and Google’s narrow focus and data restrictions. Of the 18 exposure-alert apps that Albright counted in the US, 11 use Google’s and Apple’s Bluetooth system. Two of the others are based on a system called PathCheck Safeplaces, which collects GPS information but promises to anonymize users’ location data. Others, like Citizen Safepass and the CombatCOVID app used in Florida’s Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties, ask for access to users’ location and Bluetooth proximity information without using Google’s and Apple’s privacy-restricted system. (The two Florida apps asked for permission to track the user’s location in the app itself, strangely, not in an iOS prompt.)

 

Article Source: WIRED

Wi-FRIED

Mobile technologies have shaped our way of life, but are they also discreetly killing us? That’s the question raised by the documentary short WI-FRIED?, a thought-provoking look at the secret dangers which may lurk in the midst of our globally connected society.

Everywhere you turn, people are buried in their mobile devices and tablets. Children are also an integral part of this phenomenon as these technologies take greater precedence in the school system. As a result, users of all ages worldwide are being exposed to minute amounts of microwave radiation that they never had to contend with in years past before these devices came into being. While officials have dismissed the notion that this exposure can harbor ill health effects in the long term, many scientists and other insiders are speaking out in disagreement.

Dr. Devra Davis, a highly regarded cancer epidemiologist, is one such critic of the widespread and frequent use of these devices. Her arguments are based upon common medical sense. The heart and brain thrive on electrical impulse. When these internal mechanics absorb an influx of electromagnetic signals for countless hours, it stands to reason that a biological disturbance could likely occur as a result.

Have these technologies advanced too quickly to allow for the thorough evaluation and study of their potential dangers, or does this represent a sinister corporate cover-up? Perhaps both of these points possess more than a shred of truth. The film highlights a few factors to which the public is largely unaware. Safety protocols have been advertised for the use of cellular technologies among users with pacemakers, but should this admonition be expanded to include all users? Radiofrequency radiation – the same energy that powers our cell phones and tablets – has been classified as a possible carcinogen. In the face of this uncertain determination, should additional safety measures be adopted as a precautionary measure until further study proves more conclusive?

Watch the documentary here: WI-FRIED DOCUMENTARY

Increased Cell Phone Use = Increased Tumors

 

New review study finds that heavier cell phone use increases tumor risk 

November 2, 2020

A review of research on cell phone use and tumor risk finds that cell phone use with cumulative call time more than 1000 hours significantly increased the risk of tumors.

(Berkeley, CA, November 2, 2020)  Today, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the case-control research on cell phone use and tumor risk.

This study updates our original meta-analysis (i.e., quantitative research review) published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2009. The new review examined twice as many studies as our original paper.

“In sum, the updated comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found significant evidence linking cellular phone use to increased tumor risk, especially among cell phone users with cumulative cell phone use of 1000 or more hours in their lifetime (which corresponds to about 17 min per day over 10 years), and especially among studies that employed high quality methods.”

The abstract and excerpts from this open access paper appear below:

Yoon-Jung Choi+, Joel M. Moskowitz+, Seung-Kwon Myung*, Yi-Ryoung Lee, Yun-Chul Hong*. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020, 17(21), 8079; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218079 (registering DOI).

Abstract

We investigated whether cellular phone use was associated with increased risk of tumors using a meta-analysis of case-control studies. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to July 2018. The primary outcome was the risk of tumors by cellular phone use, which was measured by pooling each odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). In a meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies, compared with never or rarely having used a cellular phone, regular use was not associated with tumor risk in the random-effects meta-analysis. However, in the subgroup meta-analysis by research group, there was a statistically significant positive association (harmful effect) in the Hardell et al. studies (OR, 1.15—95% CI, 1.00 to 1.33— n = 10), a statistically significant negative association (beneficial effect) in the INTERPHONE-related studies (case-control studies from 13 countries coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); (OR, 0.81—95% CI, 0.75 to 0.89—n = 9), and no statistically significant association in other research groups’ studies. Further, cellular phone use with cumulative call time more than 1000 hours statistically significantly increased the risk of tumors. This comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found evidence that linked cellular phone use to increased tumor risk.

+Contributed equally to this study as the first author. *Correspondence: msk@ncc.re.kr (S.-K.M.); ychong1@snu.ac.kr (Y.-C.H.)

Excerpts

3.5. Exposure–Response Relationship Between Use of Cellular Phones and Risk of Tumors

Table 3 shows an exposure-response relationship between cellular phone use and tumor risk. In the subgroup meta-analysis by time since first use or latency, overall the risk of tumors by cellular phone use non-significantly increased from an OR of 0.97 to 1.29 as latency increased from less than 5 years to 10 or more years. This finding was observed in each subgroup meta-analysis by research group. Especially, statistically significant increased tumor risk was observed for latency of 10 or more years in the Hardell studies (OR, 1.62; 1.03 to 2.57; n = 5; I2 = 39.9%). Similarly, the use of cellular phones non-significantly increased the risk of tumors as the cumulative or lifetime use in years and the cumulative number of calls increased in all studies and in each study group. Remarkably, in the subgroup meta-analysis of all studies by cumulative call time, cellular phone use greater than 1000 hours statistically significantly increased the risk of tumors (OR, 1.60; 1.12 to 2.30; n = 8; I2 = 74.5%). Interestingly, the use of cellular phones overall and in the Hardell studies (OR, 3.65; 1.69 to 7.85; n = 2, especially in the Hardell studies) non significantly increased the risk of tumors with cumulative call time of 300–1000 h and more than 1000 h, while it decreased the risk of tumors in most subgroup meta-analyses of the INTERPHONE studies.

  1. Conclusions

In sum, the updated comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found significant evidence linking cellular phone use to increased tumor risk, especially among cell phone users with cumulative cell phone use of 1000 or more hours in their lifetime (which corresponds to about 17 min per day over 10 years), and especially among studies that employed high quality methods. Further quality prospective studies providing higher level of evidence than case-control studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

Sources:  SAFE EMR,

Cellular Phone Use and Risk Of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

1996: When Cell Phone Safety Guidelines Were Last Updated

 

In a Washington Post op-ed (June 4), “5G conspiracy theories threaten the U.S. recovery,” Thomas Johnson Jr., the Federal Communications Commission’s general counsel, declared: “Conjectures about 5G’s effect on human health are long on panic and short on science.”

The FCC, however, has been “short on science” for more than two decades. Along with the World Health Organization, the FCC abdicated its responsibility to protect the public’s health from hazards associated with exposure to radio frequency, or RF, radiation. As a result, almost 400 international scientists and doctors have called for a moratorium on deployment of 5G, and 150 community groups have tried to block its rollout in the United States. Recently, the Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense, along with multiple plaintiffs, sued the FCC over its inadequate RF exposure limits and cell phone testing procedures.

The FCC relies on other agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration, for health expertise. However, without a comprehensive review of all peer-reviewed science and a formal risk assessment, the FDA in a letter advised the FCC that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.” The letter “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time.”

In a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Senator Blumenthal “blasted” the FCC and FDA for “failing to conduct any research into the safety of 5G technology . . . and deferring to industry. . . . We’re kind of flying blind here, as far as health and safety is concerned.”

Last December, the FCC reaffirmed its obsolete RF exposure limits, ignoring critical input from more than 50 scientists, hundreds of scientific studies, and hundreds of people who have suffered illness from RF radiation.

Originally adopted in 1996, these limits were based upon a behavioral change in rats and monkeys exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect humans only from short-term heating risks due to RF radiation exposure.

Since 1996, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research—more than 500 studies—has found harmful biologic or health effects from RF radiation exposure at intensities too low to cause significant heating. Thus stringent exposure limits based on biological effects are needed to protect human health.

Citing this body of research, over 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields, or EMF, signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger RF exposure limits. The signatories have published over 2,000 papers and letters on nonionizing EMF in professional journals and arguably constitute the majority of experts in this field.

The appeal proclaims:

Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.

In 2018, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program reported “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone radiation increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute replicated the NTP’s key finding using much weaker cell phone radiation exposure over the rats’ lifespan.

The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011. We are seeing increases in head and neck tumors in cancer registries from multiple countries, which may be attributable to the proliferation of wireless device use. These increases are consistent with case-control studies that found increased tumor risk in long-term cell phone users.

Moreover, cancer is not even the most common hazard, because there is substantial scientific evidence that RF radiation causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm.

The volume of peer-reviewed scientific evidence on earlier technologies suggests that exposure to microwaves and millimeter waves used in 5G is likely harmful.

According to Johnson, “if we delay 5G deployment based on irrational fears and unproven theories, it will only hurt the American people.” But can we trust the FDA or FCC’s evaluation of the science? Should we gamble on our health and invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a technology that requires 800,000 new cell antenna sites installed next to our homes and workplaces? Or should we develop RF exposure standards that fully protect humans and the environment and institute a risk management system based upon a formal risk assessment?

SOURCE ARTICLE HERE

FCC Telecommunications Act 1996: 

 

EMFs: The Silent Killer In Your Home

Anna Wright is 15 years old. Three years ago her brother got sick from EMFs and Mold Biotoxin Illness. Since then her family’s journey has been a difficult one.
So she decided to do her 9th-grade research paper on EMFs:
Did you know that there are man-made frequencies bombarding us everyday? And no, it’s not “the force”. There is harmful radiation coming from your phone and wifi router called Electromagnetic Field Radiation (EMF) or Radio Frequencies (RF). They are affecting every single person, constantly, around the world. It’s something everyone in the world should know about, but almost no one does.
What Is EMF And Why Should I Care?
First, What Is “EMF”?
EMF stands for “electromagnetic field”. Breast Cancer Awarness.org and the National Cancer Institute [1,2] say EMFs are, “a type of non-ionizing radiation that emit low-frequency radiation and are caused by electromagnetic fields.”
What Objects Are Threatening And How Do They Hurt You?
Many experts including Dr. Joseph Mercola, and Dr. David Carpenter, agree everyday household items can give off harmful EMF like: hairdryers, electric toothbrushes, baby monitors, smart clocks, electric mixers, microwave ovens, blenders, PlayStations, computers, smart televisions, Bluetooth, cell phones, wifi, etc…
Want to know the rest of the story and what you can do to protect yourself?