giovedì 22 dicembre 2016

WHO deve essere al di sopra delle parti !

Giusta iniziativa del gruppo di scienziati indipendenti Bioinitiative Working Group che si è rivolto al Direttore del WHO per chiedere una diversa composizione della nuova commissione di esperti denominata RF Environmental Health Criteria Core Group  che è praticamente una dependence del ICNIRP, le cui posizioni 'negazioniste' sono ben note.

BioInitiative Working Group Issues a "No Confidence" Letter to the WHO EMF Program Manager

The BioInitiative Working Group has advised the World Health Organization's Dr. Emilie van Deventer that the membership composition of the RF Environmental Health Criteria Core Group is unacceptable.  WHO is urged to make changes to the WHO RF EHC Core Group membership to more fairly reflect membership and expertise of the 2011 IARC RF Working Group.  At present the WHO RF EHC Core Group is indistinguishable from ICNIRP (1, 2) undermining credibility of the process and ensuring doubt about conclusions. Even if schedule delays occur as a result...

Articolo sul Manifesto del 20.12.16

martedì 6 dicembre 2016

Video su intervento di L. Hardell alla Royal Society of Medicine in London.

qui il link 

OSHA lancia grido d'allarme per i lavoratori addetti alle antenne

Il ministero federale americano per la sicurezza dei lavoratori lanciano un grido d'allarme per le morti professionali da loro riportati per gli operatori addetti alla installazione e manutenzione delle antenne dei cellulari  Preoccupazione è per i lavori programmati per la 5G.

vedere qui 

venerdì 2 dicembre 2016

Perché i governi non ci proteggono ?

Importante articolo di Magda Havas sulla qualificata rivista americana, Environmental Pollution, in cui affronta in modo logico e consequenziale perché il governo (USA, ma anche tutti gli altri) non ci protegge dalle radiofrequenze anche se la ricerca mostra la relazione con il cancro.

L'articolo (ri)propone un molto probabile meccanismo d'azione legato alla creazione di radical liberi a causa di microonde, a valori ben inferiori dei limiti oggi fissati dai governi.
C'è nutrita evidenzia scientifica che avvalora questa ipotesi che vede centrale il ruolo dei radicali liberi.

I governi purtroppo basano le loro linee guida su un ragionamento sbagliato: è acquisito che le radiazioni ionizzanti (es. raggi X) provocano la uscita dell'elettrone a livello atomico portando a modifiche della struttura cellulare, e quindi al cancro. Le radiazioni non-ionizzanti come la radiofrequenze non estraggono l'elettrone, per cui ... non sono cancerogene!
In altre parole le radiazioni ionizzanti provocano la formazione di radicali liberi direttamente, mentre le non-ionizzanti lo fanno ma indirettamente, perché intervengono riducendo o bloccando  i meccanismi di autoriparazione interni alla struttura cellulare, portando quindi ad un potenziamento dello effetto dei radicali liberi.


November 29, 2016:  The Missing Link:  Why your government isn’t protecting you from mobile phones and Wi-Fi when research shows this radiation causes cancer.
The American scientific journal, Environmental Pollution, reports in its next issue that government safety guidelines for microwave radiation emitted by mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, and other common wireless devices, are fundamentally flawed and fail to protect the public from this possible carcinogen.

This paper presents a highly probable mechanism that involves an increase in free-radicals, which–in turn–explains the increased risk of cancers documented in epidemiological studies that are associated with environmental exposure to RFR and ELF EMFs at levels well below international guidelines.
•  There is sufficient scientific evidence of cellular damage caused by non-ionizing radiation (NIR) well below thermal guidelines.
•  Applying the ionization model to NIR is inappropriate as mechanisms of biological interactions differ.
•  Free radicals can and do cause cancer and NIR can and does increase free-radicals.

Scientific evidence increasingly shows wireless radiation causes cancer and infertility and other health effects, but due to a flawed assumption in safety guidelines, governments in the United States, Canada, and the UK (and many other countries) are allowing their citizens to be overexposed to microwave radiation from wireless technology.
Because governments relied on the wrong model when declaring these devices to be safe.
Ionizing radiation such as x-rays and gamma rays are known to cause cancer by detaching the negative ion – the electron – at the heart of human cell structure.  Non-ionizing radiation, such as microwaves, do not detach electrons. Therefore when determining whether microwave-emitting devices were safe to be sold to the public, governments formulated their consumer safety guidelines with the understanding that microwave radiation does not directly or immediately discharge electrons. Despite the growing number of scientific studies documenting that microwave radiation causes cancer, governments have refused to update their guidelines.
One critical aspect of non-ionizing radiation has been overlooked.
Ionizing radiation increases free radicals in the body directly.  Non-ionizing radiation increases free radicals in the body indirectly, by interfering with repair mechanisms that neutralize free radicals.  Free radicals are carcinogenic.  Therefore by interfering with the body’s ability to repair free radical damage, microwave radiation is also carcinogenic.
Microwave radiation was used in the 1940s for military radar, and was widely adopted for civilian residential use in the 1970s to cook food. Microwave ovens (originally called radar ranges) are shielded because microwaves are known to cause heating. At that time, it was assumed that the only danger from microwave exposure was tissue heating, known as the “thermal effect”. This led to thermal guidelines for microwave radiation.
This paper shines a spotlight on the misguided genesis of government regulations that are based on the thermal effect and documents free-radical damage induced by non-ionizing radiation.
As usage of microwave–emitting devices increases and is marketed to younger consumers without caution, we can expect a societal increase of certain types of cancers including gliomas as well as infertility and other health effects associated with free-radical damage.  Indeed this is already happening.

Havas, M.  2016.  When theory and observation collide:  Can non-ionizing radiation cause cancer?  Environmental Pollution (in press).
This paper attempts to resolve the debate about whether non-ionizing radiation (NIR) can cause cancer–a debate that has been ongoing for decades. The rationale, put forward mostly by physicists and accepted by many health agencies, is that, “since NIR does not have enough energy to dislodge electrons, it is unable to cause cancer.” This argument is based on a flawed assumption and uses the model of ionizing radiation (IR) to explain NIR, which is inappropriate. Evidence of free-radical damage has been repeatedly documented among humans, animals, plants and microorganisms for both extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) and for radio frequency (RF) radiation, neither of which is ionizing. While IR directly damages DNA, NIR interferes with the oxidative repair mechanisms resulting in oxidative stress, damage to cellular components including DNA, and damage to cellular processes leading to cancer. Furthermore, free-radical damage explains the increased cancer risks associated with mobile phone use, occupational exposure to NIR (ELF EMF and RFR), and residential exposure to power lines and RF transmitters including mobile phones, cell phone base stations, broadcast antennas, and radar installations.