left cheek, right face

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
left cheek, right face


I've posted on a few babble threads in the past few years, about what is being largely avoided as the greatest health & environmental threat going. Some seemed appreciative, others less so.

Few will likely openly appreciate, I expect, that example is made of others' suffering. But while I restrained myself upon learning of Olivia Chow's other condition, it is hard to resist hard upon that learning of Jim Flaherty's bullous pemphigoid.

We dealt with this rare affliction, of almost onomatopoeic name, in our own family: an elderly member in a long term care facility, which had just been fitted with some of the latest in wireless mania, wifi for nurses, who was parked under the routers along with the helpless inarticulate co-residents for hours daily, developed bullous pemphigoid. (And poor old man never would have voted for Flaherty's ilk, ever.)

We protested - not only based on that incident - and they shut it off. The rash abated right away. It all led to a provincial government-ordered study about purported safety of institutional wifi.

The study (Copes' OAHPP report) was sadly lame, on which basis wifi went back on about 1&1/2 years after the moratorium we achieved began. We find renewed evidence of harm. At least it was a starter demonstration that provincial health ministries have real jurisdiction, and need not reflexively but voluntarily defer to federal opinion, as is the case with "Health"  Canada's Safety Code 6 re radiofrequency exposures. (Also sadly, a similar report put out by the counterpart QC agency, INSPQ, was even more woefully lacking (on cell towers)).

Bullous pemphigoid is a decreasigly rare condition. That kind of decrease began as for so many ill health indicators -- right from the deployment of mass wireless gadgetry & infrastructure in the late 90s. This timing it has in common with other sudden upticks of and continuing increase in, e.g., health care costs, workplace absentee rates, youth mental distress, several cancers - thyroid, prostate, for very salient-to-NDP examples.

"Ramsay Hunt" is a less ugly name than "bullous p.". But it would be very surprising, to serious readers of e.g. the recently re-released and updated Bioinitiative Report (online), that Chow, Layton, Flaherty and innumerable others in as many ways as we bio-electrical beings can be electrically interfered with, that their conditions have not as necessary condition human abuse of the electromagnetic spectrum.




Back in 09 from older data up to 05 CIW pointed out early trend to mental ill health in youth.

Post-secondary campuses lately in news reporting surges in mental health issues.

Now this TDSB report.

Not one instance in all the above of considering how extraordinary it is that young people are dealing with such issues en masse and increasingly, and that the central enviro stressor they face that is behind this surge, is the increasing en masse exposures to wireless.

a significant portion reported a host of physical symptoms associated with depression. The numbers were highest among Grades 9 through 12, where 76% of students said they felt “tired for no reason” and had difficulty concentrating, 57% said they lost sleep because of worries and nearly a third said they “often” or “sometimes” felt like crying.
The 2011 census of more than 100,000 students — which included new questions to measure social and emotional well-being, the board says — found stress and anxiety to be the most prevalent emotional issues.




Are Harperions tilting "Health" Canada to do an honest study that threatens a non-oil-based energy industry?


Too much cortisol, I hear, means gray hair.

But the anti-turbiners seem to be not taking seriously the possible contribution to their ills from the wind installations' radio emissions, and how much would general e-pollution confund this study?

And, in case none of you have peeked at the Bioinititaive Report ( http://www.bioinitiative.org/ ) I mentioned above, one new feature of which is a huge compilation of study abstracts a huge number of which attest to the dangers of wireless that so few want to own up to, here is a very recent one on hair:

Cam ST, Seyhan N. Single-strand DNA breaks in human hair root cells exposed to mobile phone radiation. Int J Radiat Biol. 88(5):420-424, 2012.

Abstract. Purpose: To analyze the short term effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure on genomic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of human hair root cells. Subjects and methods: Hair samples were collected from 8 healthy human subjects immediately before and after using a 900-MHz GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) mobile phone for 15 and 30 minutes. Single-strand DNA breaks of hair root cells from the samples were determined using the 'comet assay'. Results: The data showed that talking on a mobile phone for 15 or 30 minutes significantly increased (p< .05) single-strand DNA breaks in cells of hair roots close to the phone. Comparing the 15-min and 30-min data using the paired t-test also showed that significantly more damages resulted after 30 minutes than after 15 minutes of phone use. Conclusions: A short-term exposure (15 and 30 minutes) to RFR (900-MHz) from a mobile phone caused a significant increase in DNA single-strand breaks in human hair root cells located around the ear which is used for the phone calls.



To compare how woefully behind are Canadian "Greens" on these issues to European,  http://www.robindestoits.org/BELGIQUE-La-majorite-refuse-de-prendre-en-c... . But after 1&1/2 years a bill introduced finally debated, and defeated, in Belgium.

Despite some sympathy & modest action from Eliz. May, there seems now to be no willingness to touch the issues given lack of support within GPC (and the bad publicity she got last time she tried to say something, after standing with BCGP against wireless smart meters and musing aloud while insufficiently informed re wifi).

Note the ignorant mockery reported from socialist opponents of the proposed bill. The bill is posted at http://www.next-up.org/pdf/Proposition_de_Resolution_Therese_Snoy_Visant....

There hasn't been mockery from NDP-ers here, but ignorance abounds, and along with the hoodwinked general public reluctance to face the gigantic mess we've gotten into. Imagine what a drop in GDP were kill telephony & associated wireless to be properly drastically curtailed, medical & pharma industries would shrink, all those investors piggybacking, and so on.

Apparent credtiable behaviour came via a bill proposed by NDP MP Sylvain Chicoine, but the bill was lame, and defeated anyway. http://sylvainchicoine.ndp.ca/my-private-membres-bill-c-429 , http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billI... . Note how he took pains to say, "I would like to emphasize that this bill does not aim to impede development or create obstacles in the radiocommunication and telecommunication industry".

Important development, however, in court proceedings in QC, at least three municipaliites trying to reassert local say over kill telephony tower placement, see re Chäteauguay:


Health is ultimately provincial, and it looks like it wil take a province more jealous for its jurisdiction to one day reassert in this domain. THe judge's ineterest in health effects notwithstanding telecom assumptions and assurances, is notable and a sign of things to come. Would that a less cruel poliitical than judicial route be followed for redress. It's only the paramount health & enviro issue of our time.









Royal (Rubberstamp) Society of Canada picks skewed panel to "peer review" "Health" Canada's "Safety" Code 6:


Intended consensus will be easy.



Some latest international developments:

1st English-language tribunal to accept "electrohypersensitivity" re compensation for occupational injury:


And leaked to press in Israel, now many stories/interviews in past days, six-figure out of court settlement for

mob phone injury (head cancer). (I have no link to share in English; here's one interview but in Hebrew, with lawyer & researcher,

http://reshet.tv/News2/Shows/SixWith_video/videomarklist%2c218428/ .)

Big intl. re-insurers (eg Swiss Re) foresaw eventual "catastrophic" flood of litigation, and so stayed out of it.





Then there is increasingly frequent verbal slippage I have referred to as 'syllabic misanticipation', or to cover a wider genre of wireless-induced warning via audible mental glitch, syllablips.

Watch Harper at http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/07/minister-justin-trudeau-stephen-... .

Don't attribute causality to his apparent weariness.
The 'IN' in 'mINister' precedes what he has in mind upcoming, "misanticipating" a syllable in 'papINeau'. These days I listen very little to radio, but I do tune in CBC while on the road for a time every week, and it never takes long to catch these slips, I imagine CBC studios have as great an occupational wireless expoure as anywhere. Here a just a few of many typical samples caught from the past few short hearings, it never taking many minutes at a sitting to catch these:

"I'm hopINing -- I'm hoping -- that termINation".

"ten Gay - ten days - aGo".

"Gew - new - aGreement"

"anTy - any - anTi-amyloid"

"snapH -  snapshot - of snakeHead"

"poNdcast -- podcast -- aNd"

"concerto OF hour OF power" [uncorrected]

"united stRates & austRalia" ["]

"miliStary aSSault" ["]

"an invaSIES [invasive] speCIES" ["]

Usually they are caught by the sayer, but as noted above they pass through uncorrected at times.

Irradiated of the world disunite, the only thing you have to lose is your brains.

Another warning from the brain, now epidemic tinnitus due to prolonged wireless exposures, once 'Frey' effect microwave hearing occurs often enough, one is tipped into its being induced -- and prolonged even severely -- at the slightest exposure. No pain or heat in the brain, sonic warning instead.

I mentioned the Australian occupational injury case above, it included reference to this tinnitus. See how this is breaking through at long last into mainstream notice, here BBC where sufferer includes this tinnitus among other symptoms enumerated.



D V wrote:

Royal (Rubberstamp) Society of Canada picks skewed panel to "peer review" "Health" Canada's "Safety" Code 6:


Intended consensus will be easy.

Letter to RSC principals signed in a couple of days by approaching 200 signatories:


 With every respect for the Royal Society of Canada's reputation for
 professionalism and integrity, we are concerned about the constitution
 of your expert panel for the 'Review of Safety Code 6: Potential Health
 Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunications
 Devices.'  There is at least the appearance of significant potential for
 bias and/or conflict of interest among some of its members, and we urge
 strongly that the Royal Society reconstitute the panel (even if it means
 beginning the study afresh) solely of members with (i) no appreciably
 material link, past or present, in their personal or professional lives
 to the wireless telecommunications industry and (ii) who have not staked
 an academic or otherwise public reputation on a specific view of the
 adequacy of Health Canada's Safety Code 6 or the potential health
 effects, or lack thereof, of radiofrequency fields from wireless
 telecommunications devices.  It would be regrettable for the
 impartiality of any of your reports to be called into question, or for
 the authority and reputation of the Royal Society to be compromised in
 any way, and we are sure you would agree that those experts with such
 links and/or existing positions ought to be removed from the panel.

 While it is right and laudable for the Royal Society to have, as it
 appears to have done, attempted to staff this panel with members from
 diverse personal, professional and (somewhat diverse) geographical
 backgrounds, only those individuals capable of approaching an expert
 panel study with no potential for prejudice respecting the subject of
 that study, and no appearance of potential for such prejudice, ought to
 participate in that expert panel if it is designed to be "independent,
 comprehensive and evidence-based input into the public policy
 development process of Canada," as the Royal Society website describes
 its work.  We therefore, and without any wish to impugn the credibility
 of these individuals generally, question the inclusion in this
 particular panel of, for example, Dr. Daniel Krewski, who has been
 involved in studies partially funded by the Canadian Wireless and
 Telecommunications Association; Dr. Louise Lemyre, a close colleague of
 Dr. Krewski and whose credentials in social psychology in any event
 would appear ill-suited to a study of the biological effects of
 radiofrequency radiation; Dr. Kenneth Foster, who has made an academic
 position clear in a set of book reviews recently published in the
 journal of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, in
 which he expresses scepticism of claims of radiofrequency radiation
 health effects; Dr. John Moulder, who is alleged to have "earned
 hundreds of thousands of dollars disputing the existence of adverse EMF
 health effects, even those accepted by most other members of the EMF
 community" (Microwave News - http://microwavenews.com/RR.html); and Dr.
 Frank Prato, who has made public statements questioning the wisdom of
 precautionary measures by public authorities against potential health
 effects from radiofrequency radiation, and thus holds an existing and
 publicly stated position on the policy question.

 The matter of health effects from radiofrequency radiation and the use
 of wireless communication devices is one of the great looming public
 policy concerns of our time, touching, because of the extensive
 proliferation of wireless technologies, the health of nearly every
 Canadian (including our susceptibility to cancer and neurological and
 cardiac disorders, and our fertility and the integrity of our genetic
 heritage), touching the politics and philosophy of precaution in public
 policy, the question of corporate influence in public policy, and
 both current and future health-care costs of all Canadian
 taxpayers.  Before a senior, respected and authoritative body like the
 Royal Society issues serious and influential policy advice on a matter
 of such broad public import, surely it would behoove the body to gather
 for that purpose a panel of not only capable, qualified and
 knowledge-seeking but also completely neutral-minded scientists whose
 sole purposes are to discover the truth of the matter and make reasoned
 recommendations based on their honest findings, untainted by bias or
 conflict of interest, the potential for bias or conflict of interest or
 even the perception of same.  Any other course would be a profound
 disservice to Canadians, an abdication of societal responsibility whose
 dangerous consequences could resonate for generations to come.  We trust
 the Royal Society will take its moral position seriously, take every
 appropriate measure to maintain the integrity of this expert panel
 report and in so doing retain the deserved trust of right-thinking

 Yours faithfully,




The RSC letter below was sent in response to the letter upthread and other letters. The above letter accumulated over 500 signatories in a few days. If there is no length limit to posting here, maybe I'll put my own latest reply to RSC principals in a following post (or more if needed).

This isn't exactly Cdn. politics, so I hope tolerated as topical to this thread I'm maintaining, fyi on a very serious subject, which should get poliitcal again very soon.


Dear concerned citizen,

Thank you for your communication regarding the Royal Society of Canada’s Expert Panel tasked with reviewing the latest version of Health Canada’s Safety Code 6. We fully appreciate your concerns and will provide a mechanism for your views to be presented to the panel. This will likely take the form of a meeting of the panel in the summer of 2013 to which interested parties such as yourself will be invited. Once the panel has completed a draft report, our standard procedure is for this to undergo peer review.

As for the points of view and potential conflicts of interest of the panel members, these are largely known to us, will be carefully reviewed at the first meeting of the panel, and will be published with the panel report. It is almost inevitable that experts in a field will have expressed conclusions based on existing evidence. But these views are not immutable. Scientists are accustomed to assessing new evidence and changing their conclusions as required. I am confident that the existing panel, working with a wide variety of inputs and subject to peer review of its report, will make a fair assessment of SC6 and make sensible recommendations for changes.

Please note that the panel includes scientists with expertise in cell biology, neurophysiology and psychosocial aspects of risk and health so that the actual mechanisms by which electromagnetic fields might cause adverse health effects, and their attendant risks, can be assessed in detail. The international composition of the panel also provides for ready links to studies in other countries and by organizations such as the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

Please be assured that we do take your concerns seriously and welcome your input.

Geoff Flynn, FRSC
Chair, Committee on Expert Panels
March 12, 2013




Dear Prof Flynn and other RSC principals,

Your letter is appreciated, but based on it there remain important considerations to be expressed regarding this contentious RSC panel.

The very constituency of the panel being at issue, it is hard to understand how a "concerned citizen" is to be encouraged to participate in the process, e.g. by appearing before such a panel in summer [2013].

In matters of trust, such as when one comes before the judiciary and to which is analogous scientific judgement involving as it does specialized skills and knowledge, ab initio there has to be absence of perception of influence of outside interests, influence either more grossly or by culture. For at least several key panel participants, there are facts -- not mere concerns -- about their past stances and expressions and associations, which negatively colour public perception of what should be maximal panel objectivity.

There is further potential difficulty with eventual peer review. Since the field is historically fractious among researchers themselves, choice of reviewers of opposing opinions is sure to find significant fault, and as this relates to public policy, undue delay is apt to occur.

Of course, "friendlier" reviewers worsen the process still where there is perceived bias, as here already. Since the identities of eventual reviewers are unlikely to be made public, known bias is compounded by unknown.

One remedy could be in more open process at various stages, e.g. advance notice of publications under consideration by the panel. The following examples involving a comparable process in the same field of study should be illustrative of the heart of the controversy.

One leading researcher, who participated in the 2011 (WHO) IARC panel that classified radiofrequency as class 2B carcinogen, has sharply criticized the UK Health Protection Agency (AGNIR) report as a "rewriting of history and omitting inconvenient facts [...] it shows a very biased attitude of AGNIR members", "the UK HPA AGNIR Report 2012 is not a comprehensive review but it is a biased review", "there is something very wrong with the AGNIR Report [...] Not only what is in the report is debatable, but what is not seems even more interesting", "a very biased attitude of AGNIR members".


"During the years 2004 – 2010 my research group at STUK published/co-authored 7 original studies on stress response, protein expression and gene expression executed both in cells grown in laboratory and in human volunteers. Studies are well known and were published in such well known journals as PROTEOMICS or BMC Genomics. Anyone can find them on PubMed.

"None of these seven separate studies from my research group is mentioned in the HPA AGNIR Report.

"Forgotten? I can understand that one or two studies can be mistakenly forgotten when handling hundreds of studies. But seven studies? This does not sound right. It is an intentional omission to skew review and to mislead readers. No other explanation is plausible.

"Curious, I looked for some studies by other scientists that were published after 2003. To my dismay many were missing. I strongly advise readers of the report to check the references. There might be unexpected surprises.

"One [thing] seems to be clear, unlike the claims on [the] HPA website the UK HPA AGNIR Report 2012 is not a comprehensive review but it is a biased review."
( http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/between-rock-and-har... ).

Here is an other sadly typical instance of same in this field, which unreasonable behaviour to a reasonable observer explains the source of so much controversy:       

(book quote accessible via http://www.emfacts.com/the-procrustean-approach/)

“in his review of the IEEE’s data-base, theoretical biophysicist Vladimir N. Binhi from the Russian Academy of Sciences wrote that the IEEE’s dismissal of non-thermal effects was essentially based on flawed reasoning. According to Binhi, the IEEE incorrectly considered non-thermal effects as not possible since they contradict the known laws of physics and evidence for such effects are simply artefacts since they are not replicated in other labs. Where they have been replicated, IEEE considered that they had no significance for human health. Binhi analysed the IEEE data-base used as the rationale for the IEEE standard. Although it contained over 1300 references, a discrepancy is seen between the number of non-thermal papers sited in the IEEE standard compared to a 2005 Swedish review of research on non-thermal biological effects of microwaves. This review, by Igor Belyaev, included 115 references for peer reviewed and published non-thermal research papers, of which only about 25% are referenced by IEEE’s RF/MW standard. Another 85 recently published papers, most showing non-thermal effects, were not included in the references for the IEEE standard. Given this discrepancy, Binhi stated that “consumers of the electromagnetic safety standards might expect a more attentive and careful attitude to human health.”

This type of selective review is part of what is negatively expected from this RSC panel.

Three scholarly examinations of connexion of certain interests to published research, have concluded that such connexion skews published findings (this is also in line with other bioeffects research more broadly, see eg Krimsky, Science in the Private Interest, Michaels, Doubt is Their Product, and many others, even from within Health Canada itself from whistleblower civil servant Chopra, Corrupt to the Core ). Biased reviews of already skewed findings (due to study design and/or interpretation, even fraudulent practice) only compounds the severity of the problem. Here's from one fairly recent look at a segment of such research (italics mine):

(Marino AA, Carrubba S. The effects of mobile-phone electromagnetic fields on brain electrical activity: a critical analysis of the literature. Electromagn Biol Med. 28(3):250-274, 2009.)

"We analyzed the reports in which human brain electrical activity was compared between the presence and absence of radio-frequency and low-frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs)  from mobile phones, or between pre- and post-exposure to the EMFs. Of 55 reports, 37 claimed and 18 denied an EMF-induced effect on either the baseline electro encephalogram (EEG), or on cognitive processing of visual or auditory stimuli as reflected in changes in event-related potentials. The positive reports did not adequately consider the family-wise error rate, the presence of spike artifacts in the EEG, or the confounding role of the two different EMFs. The negative reports contained neither positive controls nor power analyses. Almost all reports were based on the incorrect assumption that the brain was in equilibrium with its surroundings. Overall, the doubt regarding the existence of reproducible mobile-phone EMFs on brain activity created by the reports appeared to legitimate the knowledge claims of the mobile-phone industry. However, it funded, partly or wholly, at least 87% of the reports. From an analysis of their cognitive framework, the common use of disclaimers, the absence of information concerning conflicts of interest, and the industry's donations to the principal EMF journal, we inferred that the doubt was manufactured by the industry. The crucial scientific question of the pathophysiology of mobile-phone EMFs as reflected in measurements of brain electrical activity remains unanswered, and essentially unaddressed."

From these examples alone, which can sadly be multiplied manyfold, of professionals themselves calling out others in their field for misbehaviour, it should be clear why the constituency of this RSC panel has brought about such a dismayed public response. I understand that one letter circulating submitted to RSC is acquiring signatories at the rate of around 100 per day, such is the level of citizen discomfort and dissatisfaction.

If "largely known to" RSC were "points of view and potential conflicts of interest of the panel members", it is astonishing that such selection could have been made, unless it has been only through public intervention that such knowledge has been significantly increased.   

It is not contestable that, per the letter, "It is almost inevitable that experts in a field will have expressed conclusions based on existing evidence." But what is admitted as evidence is at issue. As seen from the above examples, even the existence of evidence can be overlooked or ignored. It is almost inevitable that this kind of behaviour be seen as purposeful, and not in the interests of dispassionate research, which latter must be the RSC hallmark for it to continue rendering high public service.

Thus despite confidence expressed in the letter "that the existing panel, working with a wide variety of inputs and subject to peer review of its report, will make a fair assessment of SC6 and make sensible recommendations for changes", fears and negative expectations reasonably remain, not only with regard to the impact of this panel's judgement on public and environmental health policy, but on the integrity of the institution of the RSC itself as it appears at least here to strive less than for highest standards.

There is no complaint in principle about the breadth of topical expertise invited to the panel, but that predominating members more directly in the field have a rather clear common slant to their approaches, and will not be counterbalanced by what other panelists bring.

One of these other panel members works closely already with the panel Chair. Another has been heard gratuitously praising the Chair. On expertise of another panel member from one knowledgeable commentator:

"he is still from the “same side”. Computational modelling of EMF/RF absorption is important for high-exposure level thermal effects but almost irrelevant for low level non-thermal effects where the fields are interfering with internal endogenous electric fields that our bodies systems use to survive and live properly. It is looking at the issue from the wrong starting point.
"We have large numbers of people who are claiming they are ES/EHS and are affected by low level EMFs/RF fields. These are at exposure levels where computational EMF modelling will be pointless.
"The committee clearly has been selected to support a “no proven effects” and even a “no plausible effects” result. As the letter states, it has some of the most EMF/RF-health effects denying denialists in the world."   

If there is good reason to seek international panel membership, whereas this may have been criticized earlier, reference to the ICNIRP as in the letter itself serves to further underline the problem here. From about as august a political advisory body as there is, strong language for such a venue from the Council of Europe May 2011 report (
http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewPDF.asp?FileID=13137&Language=en ):

"29. The rapporteur underlines in this context that it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields."

What more can be done to bring back some confidence that a fair and comprehensive review can be conducted by an RSC panel on topic?

[D V]



Ignore the (probably purposefully) misleading headline:


The key is:

"one resolution made it to the floor and was passed by a 366-259 vote. It called on the union to support members "who are suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity by ensuring that their medical needs are accommodated in the workplace.""

A mild indication of the way things are trending. A bit of some success at a union level. This follows an Ont. teachers' union's related position paper, http://www.oecta.on.ca/wps/wcm/connect/6a665c0049fedbee85919db62552ca8d/... . Catholic Boards I think are ignoring this, however.

But why does the NDP not take these issues to heart yet, apart from an occasional semi-favourable word?
I can philosophize about gut reluctance based on leftist feeling for modernist industrialism, for example. But we're talking about impossible to sustain public health care costs which correlate with proliferation of wireless. About on the most massive scale repercussions of "science in the private interest" (see important book of that name by Sheldon Krimsky). How can't this exercise Babble-rs, for example? Does the NDP not want to advertise at least this aspect of the largely forgotten half of the Douglas-ian public health care prescription, related to prevention?

Why are unions with all their occupational health committees, so slow to get it? Does it have to be left to brave long-suffering private pursuers of tort cases, as eg in NS, http://www.thecasket.ca/archives/14680 ?

To show how comprehensive these dangers are in their application, how about some selections from as many recent studies into male reproductive factors:

“increase in the percentage of sperm cells of abnormal morphology is associated with the duration of exposure to the waves emitted by the GSM phone. It was also confirmed that a decrease in the percentage of sperm cells in vital progressing motility in the semen is correlated with the frequency of using mobile phones”

“pulsed radio frequency emitted by the mobile phone kept in the standby position longitudinally affected sperm motility and fructose”

“mobile phones close to the testes can decrease semen quality.”

” median sperm density of the military personnel was significantly low”

“ cell phone use negatively affects sperm quality in men”

“These data suggest that EMR emitted by cellular phone influences human sperm motility. In addition to these acute adverse effects of EMR on sperm motility, long-term EMR exposure may lead to behavioral or structural changes of the male germ cell. These effects may be observed later in life”

“RF-EMR in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation. These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring”

“Ex vivo exposure of human spermatozoa to a wireless internet-connected laptop decreased motility and induced DNA fragmentation by a nonthermal effect.”

“a significant genotoxic effect on epididymal spermatozoa is evident and deserves further investigation.”

“Radiofrequency electromagnetic waves emitted from cell phones may lead to oxidative stress in human semen. We speculate that keeping the cell phone in a trouser pocket in talk mode may negatively affect spermatozoa and impair male fertility.”

“Use of cell phones decrease the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology. The decrease in sperm parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones and independent of the initial semen quality.”

“pulsed radio frequency emitted by a conventional mobile phone kept in the standby position could affect the testicular function and structure”

“knobbed hook, pin-head and banana-shaped sperm head”

“negatively affects semen quality and may impair male fertility”

(Citations available upon request.)


In post #6 above I gave some examples of syllablips, syllabic misanticipation, or however you want to call the cognitive-verbal slippage that is wireless-induced. Last couple of days while driving from again not very much radio listening, taking in more than just CBC this time (CIUT, CJRT as well):

"in sevER - seven - sepARate incidents"

"lAY - lottery - and gAming"

"maTch - march - maDness"

"two of the victiNs - victims - Joshua INshay [sp?]"

"environmental sUR -  environmental sciences at the UniveRsity"

"concentrate here - concentrate on here"

"asseC - assess fisCal risK"

"reL - resist that reLease"

"a lineR [line] in the newspapeRs"

"when he SENT - when he read [...] SENT"

"you'd Fite - you'd write a Few"

"this aC - analtyiCal"

"negotiaC - negotiations Can"

"iVA [...] inVAsion"

"C- publiC servants"


"genuIN [catches self even though no clear blip actually said yet] --
genuinely INterested"

"anti-commiS - anti-communiSt hySteria"

"country MEG - country music MEGa"

"A Britian - of Britain Abroad"

"a possL - a possibLy benevoLent"

"paraphA - paraphrAse"

There were more I couldn't record while driving -- wow, what a catch, it gets worse by the week as I occasionally monitor.

A few of the above are maybe iffy to class as s'blips, but are verbal slippage nonetheless.

Various speakers, various radio stations.

Listening to that CBC programme of vintage radio, Rewind, usually from 40s-80s, I never once have picked up a syllablip or syllabic misanticipation, all hesitations or self-corrections are
reconsiderations of what to say, and it is not all about the slower talking vs now faster with more to say & cover, I just heard eg the
late Max Ferguson talk very fast on several lengthy clips with not a single slip, two weeks ago Betty Friedan talking fast, no slips.

Meanwhile, I mentioned the BC teachers' union vote  in the last post, here's one new website setting out to defend wifi-ing children & teachers in school, http://wifiinschools.ca/ . Browse its numerous pages, and compare content & attitude of those for & against.


With pressure mounting in legal channels, successfully claiming for harm from "safe" wireless exposures, eg as noted above in Australia, Israel, look who gets called on to try to slow things down, two who made a name for themsleves in "science" defending big tobacco, Kabat & Lerchl (latter in comments section), http://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2013/03/05/do-cell-phones-caus... . (Comments are clumsy to navigate there, but worth it.)

Kabat tries to attack a leading researcher - who was at IARC when they classed this radiation as 2b "possible" carcinogen, but who is on the public record saying he'd have preferred 2A, "probable" -  who for even his mild speaking out, has been defunded & now dismissd from his position. He is welcomed to the ranks of the academically persecuted in this line of research. Plenty of stories to relate along those lines.

Dariusz Leszczynski has a blog & newspaper column running on topic, http://communities.washingtontimes.com/staff/dariusz-leszczynski/ & http://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/ .

What I have not mentioned yet was more momentous in the legal world, Italian appeal court overturned occupational compensation tribunal reluctance to get into the science that could validate the claim for head injury from cell phone use, and the supreme  court upheld the appeal court ruling in favour of the harmed employee. The main valuable point, was that the upper courts gave more weight to scientific testimony unattached to industry, whereas the tribunal had been stumped by the conflicted science, the doubt manufactured by industry-connected research. In three studies now in this research field, it has been shown that industry-connexion drastically tends to skew findings towards no indication of harm, whereas independents' (fewer for fewer $ available) tend to show indications of harm by a similar disproportion. It's a no-brainer, of course, the latter must be accorded more weight. But that is not at all how your regulators work.

You should know that it should have been 2A at IARC 30 years ago already, since benzene around then was so categorized, and there was more on it for this class of radiation than for benzene. See
http://www.neilcherry.com/documents/90_p2_EMR_IARC_benzene-microwave_ass... .

Those court cases creeping up on the industry, was long predicted by intl. re-insurance giants as likely to be "catastrophic", why they stayed out of it. Governments bag tons from telecom & related industries, but the bag has a bigger hole in its bottom, the ongoing increase in health care costs, which began their ascent - right from mass deployment of wireless '97 (as did workplace "absenteeism", noted above).

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

DV, I am still uncertain as to the urgency of your issue, but I am grateful that you post many facts and links I would otherwise not be aware of. You aren't getting much feedback, but please continue your efforts here, I think they are valuable.


Michael Moriarity wrote:

DV, I am still uncertain as to the urgency of your issue, but I am grateful that you post many facts and links I would otherwise not be aware of. You aren't getting much feedback, but please continue your efforts here, I think they are valuable.

Hi, Michael, I'm not posting here for feedback, which is certainly welcome anyway but I appreciate how daunting the subject can appear which deters response, but these postings are as something of a public service, this political corner, as it were, is underrepresented among advocates against the dangers of wireless &c. It's kind of preparatory work, cultivating ground leading to sufficient public awareness to overcome political cowardice to act protectively.

I was involved with Parliamentary hearings on topic back in Apr 2010, I must have posted here some stuff on that and related political mischief that led to the disconnect between the testimony & the committee recommendations. After similar committee failures re prostitution, for example, a successful Charter challenge ensued, and at least in the name of accommodating the burgeoning ranks of the "electrosensitive", something similar would have been done re government abetting mass irradiation, except that this field is far broader than a few Criminal Code sections, next to no lawyers are willing yet in Canada, & so on, reducing some of us advocates to spending much time on that preparatory work.

In Canada, apart from the personal injury case I noted above, there have so far been two attempts at legal recourse, one couched as Landlord-Tenant dispute in Ontario, penthouse residents fleeing sickened from new cell mast installations overhead -- with bad result owing mainly to horrific legal representation -- and another ongoing in BC re lack of accomodation for sufferers, in terms of Human Rights, by forcing exposures to RF from "smart" meters. In BC all opposition parties have now spoken in favour of allowing opting out of wireless, and the likely NDP winners of the upcoming election there have pledged to honour this, except that it looks like so far they will go along with charging extra customers who choose not to get hurt, a discriminatory practice that should also end up before a Rights tribunal. Ontario was the usual lapdog-to-empire early adopter(-sufferer) of wireless smart electricity meters, and looks like a Rights-based challenge we are headed for here on that, short of about-face by the Wynne or whatever next govt. The Ont. Energy Ministry is aware of the problem but is frozen into inaction.

Anyway, more Canadian goings on for you to take note of, your uncertainty about urgency has me wonder what it would take for someone like you, surely not as sadly said by a veteran researcher in the field in what's sadly still the best mainstream N.A. article to date on general topic, by a veteran author some of you might recognize and respect, Chris Ketcham, http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-r... :

"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.""

Maybe of interest is a recent posting to an advocates' forum, and it must be asked, to what extent to people in this Rabble-sian political corner  tellingly leave it to others to change the paradigm they themselves can be stuck in:


To: e-smog@googlegroups.com
Subject: bpa, hc, emf, &c
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:46:02 +0000

It should be of particular interest to us that "Health" Canada stands I think still alone in its not long ago action on ltd BPA banning. This episode should be learned about more in depth, as it could help prosecute emf issues in Canada. It seems to me, before closer examination, that there was a political motivation to do what they did, not only related to the Canadian-generated publicity for the issue, but to (terribly meekly anyway) try to show how they are not irrelevant, with a background of some of the loudest shouters having been on emf issues, for example. How much and what kind of science moves HC in one place and not another. This kind of comparison can be of big use in a courtroom.

Here are a few quotes from Sarah Vogel's new Is It Safe?: BPA and the Struggle to Define the Safety of Chemicals. Issue overlap with ours should be obvious, and what moved me to maybe start extracting quotes was her reference to Beck, as done by Maisch in his recommendably good The Procrustean Approach – Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation (onlne).

From her intro:

"[...] the past sixty years  [...] mark the convergence of the "petrochemical revolution", as described by historian Alfred Chandler, and the "risk society", as defined by German sociologist Ulrich Beck. The expanding production and use of petrochemicals to make value-added plastics, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals significantly transformed political, economic, environmental, and social condition of society in such a way that regulatory decision making became largely about the distribution of risk.

"Life has always been full of risks. What differentiates modern risks, as Beck explains, is that we knowingly "create them ourselves, they are the product of human hands and minds, of the link between technical knowledge and the economic utility calculus."

"[...] because stable understandings of safety are necessary to inform future markets, shifts or revelations in scientific understandings of chemicals are often resisted and the interpretation of scientific resarch is deeply politicized. Therefore, if chemicals are to be made safer or cleaner, we must consider not only which information is needed to make this determination but also who conducts the research and, importantly, who interprets the results. Which research questions and data are needed, and what does this information mean? What is an adverse effect, for legal and regulatory purposes? What are the appropriate tests and study designs? How much evidence is necessary to make a decision?"



RF issue shave been urgent for decades, ever since it became quickly obviopus that people were getting sick and worse. Consult already from 1977, Paul Brodeur''s masterwork of journalism of a type unseen in the mainstream these days (outgrowth of articles in the New Yorker), The Zapping of America.

Here are a couple quotes from that work:

“[...] the government and the military have systematically suppressed information about the genetic effects [...] and covered up a number of embarrassing situations in which such effects have been observed. Perhaps the quintessential example of this policy has been the Army’s handling of the genetic problem at its huge helicopter-pilot training center at Fort Rucker, Alabama”
“That microwave radiation might have genetic effects [...] discovered in 1959 by [...] Heller [et al ...] at the
New England [Inst. for Med. Res....] gross chromosomal abnormalities in garlic root-tips [...] irradiated with microwaves at power levels far below those necessary to produce heat. By 1963 [they] demonstrated that low-power microwave radiation could produce in mammalian cells and in insects mutations similar to those caused by gamma rays, X-rays, and [UV] rays. In [...] male fruit flies [...] low-level microwave radiation was mutagenic [...] could cause genetic damage in sperm cells [...] could be transmitted to their offspring [...] received more recognition in the Soviet Union than [US], where their data were largely dismissed or disbelieved.”

So a half-century at least since recognition of dangers, and exploitation of the spectrum is, unimaginably to them back then, horrifically worse, the necessary condition for so much sickness, suffering & premature death. Urgency? Certainty?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

DV wrote:

Anyway, more Canadian goings on for you to take note of, your uncertainty about urgency has me wonder what it would take for someone like you, surely not as sadly said by a veteran researcher in the field in what's sadly still the best mainstream N.A. article to date on general topic, by a veteran author some of you might recognize and respect, Chris Ketcham, http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-r... :

"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.""

Well, I don't have the time or motivation to learn enough to have a useful opinion on this myself, so I have to rely on the opinions of others. For this question, the ones I rely on are expert in biology, but not a specialist in this subject.  Two examples for me might be P.Z. Myers or Richard Dawkins, but there are many others who would qualify as well. When people like this start saying the evidence of damage from radio frequency waves found in the environment today is clear and convincing, I will believe them.  Until I see people like this speaking up, I am going to remain uncertain.



Scientists Find Evidence of Possible Link Between Mobile Phone Usage and Thyroid Cancer

In a new article reporting the first ever link between radiation from cell phones and thyroid cancer, scientists from Tel-Aviv University believe they may have pinpointed a cause for concern for all mobile device users. Babak Larian, MD, FACS, director of the CENTER for Advanced Head & Neck Surgery in Beverly Hills, believes that the study's findings are extremely critical in understanding how thyroid cancer can be prevented.


Israeli cell phone company to compensate customer who contracted cancer

Note to cell phone users: Try to avoid making calls while standing in metallic enclosures, like elevators. It's like standing close to a large antennae.


Cancer fears could prevent Google Glass from ever becoming a phone

But there’s a second reason that Google and every other maker of forthcoming face-based systems probably shouldn’t even attempt to turn smart glasses into cell phones: They could become the definitive test of whether or not cell phones cause cancer, and not in a good way.

Doesn't look good for wearers of electrified head gear.


" In October 1997, Eircell introduced the analogue prepaid pay as you go system under the Ready To Go brand, and turned mobile communications in Ireland into a mass-market product."


"Mystery of massive rise in those quitting workforce on disability"

"If we look at the chart – taken from CSO data – which plots the growth in the number of people not working due to disability and the growth in the labour force itself, we see a massive deviation. This began in the late 1990s and has continued throughout the past dozen years."


Look at these Swedish graphs in,

"Apparent decreases in Swedish public health indicators after 1997-are they due to improved diagnostics or to environmental factors?"


And Canada, some similar graphs e.g. at

UK & cancers, sharp rise from same period, see

fig 1.2 at
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/prostate/incidence/uk... ;

fig 1.3 at
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/thyroid/incidence/uk-... ;

fig 1.6 at
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/skin/incidence/uk-ski... ;

fig 1.5 at

Why apparent arch-atheists, "P.Z. Myers or Richard Dawkins", if that is their main commonality, should be of such interest to Michael M on this topic, I'll leave for him to explain.


My comment after this persecuted researcher's latest online newspaper column (never mind the venue, it isn't his politics either), see via list of his columns (with often lively & informative reader comments, incl. interaction with columnist), first on list at http://communities.washingtontimes.com/staff/dariusz-leszczynski/ , http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/between-rock-and-har...


    "Avid" users when studied years ago make for moderate users today.

    Small animal studies might be further limited in usefulness, e.g. considering that one frequency range of mob telephony is (insanely, or wickedly on purpose) near optimal for human head absorption, whereas for rodent heads one can expect differing optimally absortive frequency ranges.

    While focus on cancer too ofen serves as distraction from the myriad other ills related to exposures to this "safe" radiation, pretty much from the time mass mob telephony began, cancer rates shot upward for at least thyroid, skin, prostate, uterus.

    Take thyroid, indications of big trouble for which also come from studies such as:

    Bergamaschi A, Magrini A, Ales G, Coppetta L, Somma G. Are thyroid dysfunctions related to stress or microwave exposure (900 MHz)? Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 17(2 Suppl):31-36, 2004.

    "there was a greater prevalence of subjects with low TSH values among 192 employees with more than 33 hrs/month conversation time"

    Dahmen N, Ghezel-Ahmadi D, Engel A. Blood laboratory findings in patients suffering from self-perceived electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Bioelectromagnetics. 30(4):299-306, 2009.

    "Our results identified laboratory signs of thyroid dysfunction, liver dysfunction and chronic inflammatory processes in small but remarkable fractions of EHS sufferers as potential sources of symptoms that merit further investigation in future studies. In the cases of TSH and ALT/AST there were significant differences between cases and controls."

    Eskander EF, Estefan SF, Abd-Rabou AA. How does long term exposure to base stations and mobile phones affect human hormone profiles? Clin Biochem. 45(1-2):157-161, 2012

    "significant decrease in volunteers' ACTH, cortisol, thyroid hormones, prolactin for young females, and testosterone levels"

    Eşmekaya MA, Seyhan N, Omero lu . Pulse modulated 900 MHz radiation induces hypothyroidism and apoptosis in thyroid cells: A light, electron microscopy and immunohistochemical study. Int J Radiat Biol. 86(12):1106-1116, 2010.

    "whole body exposure to pulse-modulated RF radiation that is similar to that emitted by global system for mobile communications (GSM) mobile phones can cause pathological changes in the thyroid gland by altering the gland structure and enhancing caspase-dependent pathways of apoptosis"

    Koyu A, Cesur G, Ozguner F, Akdogan M, Mollaoglu H, Ozen S. Effects of 900MHz electromagnetic field
    on TSH and thyroid hormones in rats. Toxicol Lett. 157(3):257-262, 2005.

    "These results indicate that 900MHz EMF emitted by cellular telephones decrease serum TSH and T(3)-T(4) levels"

    Sinha RK. Chronic non-thermal exposure of modulated 2450 MHz microwave radiation alters thyroid hormones and behavior of male rats. Int J Radiat Biol. 84(6):505-513, 2008.

    "Low energy microwave irradiation may be harmful as it is sufficient to alter the levels of thyroid hormones as well as the emotional reactivity of the irradiated compared to control animals."

    Now see stats for eg UK fig 1.3 at url (I recall links are sometimes verboten here, so here's one chopped up, to see if it'll pass):


    Put two and two together, dear readers.

    IARC, as Neil Cherry bravely pointed out years ago, should have put RF at 2A some 30 years ago. It did so for benzene around that time with less evidence than it had for it on RF.


    He has mildly spoken out about inadequacy of radiation exposure guidelines, based on the science, and was rewarded with defunding and being deposed from his position. Latest in along line of such in this sorry field, endamgering us all.

    FCC in USA is opening up a review of "safety" guidelines, much as our "Health" Canada is doing now (see above re corrupt panel at Royal Society).



    D V

    This was just brought to my attention from the NDP convention:


    Resolution on
    Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure

    Submitted by
    the Disability Rights Committee

    WHEREAS wireless communications and technologies are expanding exponentially, and extensive
    exposure to electromagnetic radiation is relatively new (generally less than 10 years); and

    WHEREAS the long-term effects of long-term exposure to electromagnetic radiation on the biology and
    health of the human body and the environment has not been conclusively determined; and

    WHEREAS electromagnetic hypersensitivity is on the increase worldwide;

    BE IT RESOLVED that the following clause be added to section 1.13 of the policy book:

    [New Democrats believe in:]
    “x”) requiring that Health Canada’s regulations on the
    safety and safe exposure limits of
    electromagnetic radiation ensure the biological integrity and health of humans and the
    environment and be based on research conducted by independent and unbiased (unaffiliated with
    industry) scientists.


    Interesting. Did it pass?