Syndication

Visualizzazione post con etichetta IARC. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta IARC. Mostra tutti i post

venerdì 24 novembre 2017

Bioinitiative Report Supplemento del 2017

E' stato pubblicato l'aggiornamento del Bionitiative Report.  vedere www.bioinitiative.org.

Il supplemento del 2017


Section 11 of the Table of Contents has a 2017 Supplement chapter which can be downloaded.
2017 Supplement – Dr. Hardell
Use of Wireless Phones and Evidence for Increased Risk of Brain Tumors


dà le basi per la richiesta della modifica della classificazione di pericolosità delle radiofrequenze a Gruppo 1: ovvero agente cancerogeno per l'uomo. 

mercoledì 12 agosto 2015

Group 2A , probabile cancerogeno : nuova richiesta di classificazione IARC

Il 4.8.2015 i Prof L. Hardell e M. Carlberg hanno inviato una (ulteriore) richiesta al Direttore Generale di WHO e al team leader del Radiation Programe Department di WHO di rivedere la classificazione della pericolosità delle radiofrequenze da 2B e 2A (probabile cancerogeno).

Il documento riporta le motivazioni ed i link alle pubblicazioni scientifiche che supportano tale richiesta.

Vediamo se verrà ancora una volta ... archiviate o no !

domenica 4 gennaio 2015

Classificazione IARC 1 (cancerogeno): Comunicato Stampa

Inoltrato il seguente email a 252 indirizzi email di giornali, riviste, radio, TV:  [vediamo se ci sarà 1 (uno) riscontro !!!]

Comunicato Stampa

IARC , OMS: Classificate la  radiofrequenza in Classe 1 (cancerogeno per l'uomo ) e non più come Classe  2b (possibile cancerogeno)
 
Copia delle comunicazione che si stanno consegnando all'Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità da parte di molte Associazioni nazionali di molti paesi dai vari continenti
 Egregi Signori,
Smettete di minimizzare gli effetti  sulla salute e i rischi di cancro legati all'esposizione a radiazioni da  radiofrequenza!
Per favore modificate la classificazione delle  radiofrequenze ed i  campi elettromagnetici  dalla  Classe 2b ( "Possibile cancerogeno per l'Uomo")  alla Classe 1 ovvero  "Cancerogeno per l'Uomo".  
Ci sono  troppi casi di tumore, troppe malattie e troppi decessi nel mondo causati da  queste emissioni, c'è un incredibile numero di studi scientifici che dimostrano  che il cancro e altri effetti molto gravi sulla salute sono causati da questa  ubiquitaria e mortale radiofrequenze!
Egregi Manager dell'OMS e dello IARC,sSmettete subito di giocare  con la salute e con la vita sul nostro Pianeta!! Classificate questa radiazione nella  Classe 1,    subito!  
"A causa del nesso causale con la sopravvivenza, la  classificazione IARC è rafforzata e la radiofrequenza dovrebbe essere  considerata come cancerogeno per l'Uomo che richiede un'urgente revisione delle  attuali linee guida di sicurezza",  sostiene il Dr. Lennart Hardell, oncologo  svedese, dell'Ospedalde Universitario di Orebro  in Svezia (leggere :  http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/10/10790/htm)
 PROMOTORE DI QUESTA INIZIATIVA E' IL  COMITATO FRANCESE  ROBIN DES  TOITS
 
A nome della Rete No Elettrosmog Italia
Dr Giorgio Cinciripini

lunedì 18 agosto 2014

Radiofrequenze quali (probabili) cancerogeni! è ora di rivedere la classificazione IARC


Vi consiglio di leggere con molta attenzione una nota di  Dariusz Leszczynski, che è uno degli esperti che nel maggio 2011 furoono chiamati da WHO/IARC per valutare la percolosità delle radiofrequenze (telefoni cellulari).

In questo articolo avanza - anche lui -  la proposta di procedere ad una revisione della letteratura scientifico medica prodotta dal maggio 2011 ad oggi per valutare lo stato delle conoscenze.

Nel 2011 a maggioranza furono classificate come POSSIBILI CANCEROGENI per limitate evidenze della sperimentazione su l'uomo, idem per le prove sugli animali .

Per un 'upgrade' della classificazione, ipotizza tre scenari:

  • le evidenze sull'uomo passano a SUFFICIENTI, e allora non importano altri supporti, e la classificazione diviene '1', cancerogeni
  • le evidenze nelle sperimentazioni su animali passano a SUFFICIENTI , pur rimanendo  limitate le evidenze sull'uomo, la classificazione passa a 2A, ovvero possibile cancerogeno
  • se c'è condivisione delle ipotesi di meccanismo d'azione che quindi genera agenti (biochimici) a loro volta pericolosi per l'uomo, la classificazione diventa 1 o 2A.
Cosa c'è di nuovo dal 2011 ?

Gli studi francesi del progetto CERENAT si aggiungono a quelli Interphone e di Hardell, che erano stati considerati a maggio 2011. Quindi 3 repliche completamente separate danno maggiore forza  ai dati epidemiologici.

In merito ai meccanismi di azione, nel maggio 2011 furono avanzati modelli tra loro congruenti che però non furono vincenti nelle votazioni .   Forse la maggioranza si spaventò all' idea di ammettere una ragionevolezza, che avrebbe comportato la classificazione 2A.

Secondo Dariusz i tempi sono maturi per una revisione della classificazione IARC

venerdì 25 aprile 2014

Altro attacco allo IARC

L' infaticabile Repacholi, a molti noto per la sua competenza ... profusa per negare sempre la evidenza degli effetti dei campi elettromagnetici sulla salute umana ... ora ha pubblicato Bioelectromagnetics. 2014 Apr 15. doi: 10.1002/bem.21851. [Epub ahead of print], un articolo dal titolo
Do people understand IARC's 2B categorization of RF fields from cell phones?

ovvero il 'popolo' comprende il significato della classificazione 2B per le radiofrequenze ?

Attacca le conclusioni di quella commissione grazie ad un' indagine online fatta sulla percezione del rischio percepita da chi ha risposto al questionario (che come tale non ha alcuna valenza scientifica in quanto non è basato su un campione statisticamente significativo).   Conclude che IARC deve meglio saper 'comunicare' ...

Ovviamente ha sistematicamente omesso di parlare degli studi di Hardell, che tra l'altro è andato avanti rispetto ai dati pubblicati fino al 2011 (e considerati dalla Commissione), con la pubblicazione di alcuni mesi fa in cui si avanza , in modo consapevole e determinato, la 'maturità ' delle conoscenze per modificare la classificazione a 2A, probabilmente cancerogeno.

venerdì 17 maggio 2013

C'è chi propone il passaggio delle radiofrequenze da 2B a 2A ...

... ovvero dalla classificazione - secondo OMS/IARC - da 2B (possibile cancerogeno) a 2A (probabile cancerogeno).

In questa pubblicazione su Pathophysiology. 2013 May 7. Devra Devis ed altri caldeggano questa revisione, i tempi sono maturi.

- nel 2011 lo IARC le ha classificati come 2B ed aprile del 2013 è uscito il documento di 400 pagine

- a gennaio 2013 l' European Environment Agency ha rilasciato un poderoso documento  di  750 pagine in cui tra i grandi pericoli per la salute e benessere dell'Umanità ci sono le radiofrequenze

- sempre più lavori evidenziano come la rilevazione di tumori al cervello arrivano su soggetti che hanno iniziato ad usarlo prima del 20 anni , e che solo ora sono epidemiologicamente rilevabili

- la significanza di questi segnali di allarmi è aumentata notevolmente in appena un decennio : cosa mai avvenuta prima.

Il costo del trattamento di un tumore al cervello costa, in USA, dai 100.000 al milione di dollari : un costo enorme per la economia,  se non ci si ferma !

E' indispensabile che i Governi innanzitutto, esercitino una pressione informativa sulla popolazione,  sull'uso attento e di minor impatto  dei telefoni e che adottino seriamente criteri di precauzione.

sabato 20 aprile 2013

Pubblicato il dossier dello IARC sulla pericolosità delle radiofrequenze

Questo documento  di 430 pagine riporta il lavoro di circa 30 ricercatori per  una settimana nel giugno del 2011 che si è concluso con la classificazione 2B :  possibile cancerogeno. delle radiofrequenze.

Punto centrale
"Positive associations have been observed between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless phones and glioma and acoustic neuroma" (p.421). Those associations with brain tumors and tumors of the acoustic nerve were observed by the Interphone study group and Lennart Hardell's team in Sweden.

Il rapporto fu firmato da quasi tutti i ricercatori .

Fu da una parte contestato perché troppo blando , ... ma in ogni caso la classificazione in 2B dopo un cosi' poderoso lavoro di analisi e sintesi, avrebbe dovuto portare le organizzazioni mondiali ad un salto nella attuazione di principi di precauzione,  più restrittivi .  Ma questo non è accaduto.

Il potere economico, tecnico e mediatico delle lobby delle telecomunicazioni, elettronica, telefonia, etc.  è tale da chiudere il coperto per non ascoltare questo 'borbotti' !!!

sabato 5 gennaio 2013

Ancora sulle conclusioni dello IARC-WHo del Maggio 2011

... qui si rimanda ad un recentissimo articolo di Hardell ed altri che richiama le conclusioni tratte dai 30 scienziati che nel 2011 hanno sentenziato sulla possibile concerogenicità delle radiofrequenze ;
queste sono molte legate agli studi di Hardell, che qui vengono dettagliati


Use of mobile phones and cordless phones is associated with increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma.

Abstract

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at WHO evaluation of the carcinogenic effect of RF-EMF on humans took place during a 24-31 May 2011 meeting at Lyon in France. The Working Group consisted of 30 scientists and categorised the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile phones, and from other devices that emit similar non-ionising electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), as Group 2B, i.e., a 'possible', human carcinogen. The decision on mobile phones was based mainly on the Hardell group of studies from Sweden and the IARC Interphone study. We give an overview of current epidemiological evidence for an increased risk for brain tumours including a meta-analysis of the Hardell group and Interphone results for mobile phone use. Results for cordless phones are lacking in Interphone. The meta-analysis gave for glioma in the most exposed part of the brain, the temporal lobe, odds ratio (OR)=1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.04-2.81 in the ≥10 years (>10 years in the Hardell group) latency group. Ipsilateral mobile phone use ≥1640h in total gave OR=2.29, 95% CI=1.56-3.37. The results for meningioma were OR=1.25, 95% CI=0.31-4.98 and OR=1.35, 95% CI=0.81-2.23, respectively. Regarding acoustic neuroma ipsilateral mobile phone use in the latency group ≥10 years gave OR=1.81, 95% CI=0.73-4.45. For ipsilateral cumulative use ≥1640h OR=2.55, 95% CI=1.50-4.40 was obtained. Also use of cordless phones increased the risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma in the Hardell group studies. Survival of patients with glioma was analysed in the Hardell group studies yielding in the >10 years latency period hazard ratio (HR)=1.2, 95% CI=1.002-1.5 for use of wireless phones. This increased HR was based on results for astrocytoma WHO grade IV (glioblastoma multiforme). Decreased HR was found for low-grade astrocytoma, WHO grades I-II, which might be caused by RF-EMF exposure leading to tumour-associated symptoms and earlier detection and surgery with better prognosis. Some studies show increasing incidence of brain tumours whereas other studies do not. It is concluded that one should be careful using incidence data to dismiss results in analytical epidemiology. The IARC carcinogenic classification does not seem to have had any significant impact on governments' perceptions of their responsibilities to protect public health from this widespread source of radiation.

Links

  • Publisher Full Text
  • Authors

    Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K

    Institution

    Department of Oncology, University Hospital, SE-701 85 Örebro, Sweden. Electronic address: lennart.hardell@orebroll.se.

    Source

    Pathophysiology : the official journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology / ISP : 2012 Dec 20 pg

    venerdì 7 settembre 2012

    Azione di disturbo sulla classificazione IARC

    A proposito di demifisticazione della scienza ...

    qui trovate un documento di tale Science Forum ELF di berlino che ha preso in esame la classificazione dello IARC/WHO '2b' - possibly canricogen' , ma visto dal punto di vista della comunicazione.


    Nel documento si mette in discussione la qualità ed il peso della decisione (presa  da una trentina di massimi scienziati del settore, dopo lunga e sofferta lotta ...!)  in quanto, secondo loro,  avrebbe dovutomotivare le scelte fatte e  dare delle specifiche di pericolosità ; ma anche  mettendo in dubbio il valore di questa classificazione ( facendo notare che nello stesso gruppo c'è il DDT ed il coffee (acido caffeinico) .... ma nascondendo che ci sono altri 260 ca. prodotti chimici molto aggressivi , ben noti ad un semplice chimico!) ...

    Bene,
    ma chi sono questi tizi ?
    vado nel loro sito e candidamente sono costretti a dire:

    Who is supporting the Science Forum EMF?
    The Forum is supported by third-party funds. Start-up financing was provided by the German Telekom. Of course, we know that this conjuncture might raise some questions. Therefore, it is particularly important to ensure that all our activities are conducted in a transparent manner.

    cioè , alla domada : ma chi vi  paga ? .... la Telecomm tedesca !!!!  sic !  ma loro sono corretti, non vi preoccupate

    giovedì 6 ottobre 2011

    FDA americana ha aggiornato il sito riportando la classificazione deell'OMS (IARC)

    Recentissimamente, grazie ad un intervento di ambientalisti US, FDA che è l'agenzia per l'alimentazione ed i farmaci, ha dovuto aggiornare le informazioni UFFICIALI sulla relazione tra RF e cancro.

    Vedere

    http://is.gd/nXQ7h5

    sabato 27 agosto 2011

    La ricerca della verità è estremamente difficile ... qui un esempio di un attacco di un epidemiologo contro IARC, ...

    Questo Dr Kabat (US)  ha pubblicato su Forbes Magazine, rivista americana di alto peso, un duro attacco alle decisioni di IARC di classificare le RF come possibili cancerogeni.

    Per fortuna c'è chi non ha memoria corta e che è stato in grado di ricostruisce il suo passato molto molto discutibile di questo 'scienziato' quando ha difeso l'industria del tabacco !
    Una criticità da un un tal personaggio  genera risultati opposti ... ma chi ha la conoscenza e l'informazione giusta da ricollegare questi fatti nel tempo ?!






    Dr. Kabat – What about his own “seriously flawed” research?

    On August 23rd Forbes Magazine published an article by epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat (article 1 below) that is extremely critical of the IARC ruling on RF as a class 2B possible carcinogen. Kabat briefly notes of the dismissal of Anders Ahlbon from the committee because of a conflict of interest and the work of Lennart Hardell which Kabat suggests was “seriously flawed”. Kabat also suggests that Hardell was only included as a member of the working group because of pressure from activists and the media and that the real reason an epidemiologist from US National Cancer Institute (Inskip) resigned from the IARC committee was because of his disgust at the weight given to the Hardell studies.
    With all this criticism of Hardell’s research what about an explanation of exactly why his research is supposed to be ‘seriously flawed”? None is offered in the Forbes article except hearsay. What Dr. Kabat needs to do now is to get back to his group of “most respected academic epidemiologists” and provide a reasoned analysis on exactly how Hardell’s research is seriously flawed so that it can be openly debated. Unsubstantiated rumours from unnamed experts is gossip not science.
    Bruce Armstrong (Australia’s Interphone head) spoke at a scientific conference in Melbourne late last year. He mentioned the controversy over Hardell’s Interphone findings but said that he could not find any methodological weaknesses in it.
    Kabat suggests that the dismissal of Ahlbon (and other issues) for conflict of interest has not been adequately pursued. That was a straightforward event. Ahlbom was dismissed after it was found that he had significant industry financial interests that he had not declared. According toMicrowave News:
    “IARC moved quickly after learning that Ahlbom is a director of his brother’s consulting firm, Gunnar Ahlbom AB. The company, which is based in Brussels, the European capital and a center for lobbyists, was established to help clients on telecom issues, with an emphasis on environmental and energy regulations. Ahlbom failed to mention this sideline in his “Declaration of Interests” that is required of all those who participate in IARC cancer assessments”. Link.
    Ahlbon also resigned as the chairman of the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority’s expert group on EMFs and RF radiation after the Authority started an investigation into whether his connection to his brother’s telecom consulting firm might have constituted a conflict with his advisory role at the Authority. Link.
    Kabat critises Hardell’s research without giving reasons, other than hearsay, but Kabat himself has a recent history of “seriously flawed” research with an additional substantial taint of conflict of interest. Namely the 2003 Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study, partially funded by Philip Morris and the Council on Tobacco Research, a front group created in 1954 by the tobacco companies to fund research on smoking and health. (See 2nd article below).
    Don

    1) Forbes: Behind The World Health Organization’s “Cancerous” Pronouncement On Cell Phones
    Geoffrey Kabat
    Geoffrey Kabat, a cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, lays out how WHO’s cancer conclusions don’t square with actual science.
    We rely on health and regulatory agencies to provide impartial assessments of potential health risks. Unfortunately, these agencies can be subject to the same political and professional pressures at work in society generally. An example of this is the recent, widely-publicized pronouncement by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (which is part of the World Health Organization) to the effect that radiofrequency radiation (or RF) from cell phones was “possibly carcinogenic.” Coming only a year after publication of the results of a large multi-country study, which showed no convincing evidence of a hazard, IARC’s announcement left the public as well as many scientists nonplussed. IARC is a prestigious agency that since the early 1970s has been producing respected monographs evaluating the evidence for a wide range of chemical, physical, and hormonal agents in the carcinogenic process. The cell phone report was the result of an intensive, week-long review by a committee of experts. In spite of the consternation caused by the report in professional circles, there has been little insight into how the IARC could evaluate all of the relevant scientific evidence and come up with an impossibly vague conclusion. Like many of my colleagues, I was dismayed by the IARC announcement, which did not square with my reading of the scientific evidence.
    Hints that not everything was harmonious in the IARC process seeped out but have not been pursued. These include the dismissal from the committee of one of the foremost experts on non-ionizing radiation, a Swedish epidemiologist, due to a “conflict of interest” and the resignation from the committee of an epidemiologist specializing in brain tumors at the National Cancer Institute.
    In June I contacted both of these colleagues asking if they would agree to answer questions about the committee’s deliberations, but in both cases they politely declined. One colleague, who is knowledgeable about both IARC and the National Cancer Institute group, offered that scientists involved in this contentious issue have a strong incentive to keep a low profile.
    SNIP
    However, Hardell’s work is viewed as seriously flawed by some of the most respected academic epidemiologists working in this area. It appears that he was included as a member of the working group in response to pressure from activists and the media. One well-informed scientist told me that she thought the committee member who resigned did so in disgust at the weight given to the Hardell studies
    SNIP
    In classifying RF as a “possible carcinogen,” IARC has aligned itself with the “precautionary principle,” which sounds perfectly reasonable, except that it is often used to conjure up the existence of a possible hazard in the face of extensive and solid evidence suggesting the non-existence of a hazard. Of course, we need to spell out the limits of current knowledge, but we also need to rely on scientists and health agencies to use logic, analytic rigor, and clear language to assess what things are worth worrying about.
    Geoffrey Kabat, Ph.D., is a cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the author of “Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of Epidemiology.”

    2) From the website of the American Nonsmokers’ Rights (ANR) Foundation.
    The tobacco industry has a long history of trying to cast doubt on the science of secondhand smoke. In its latest attempt, the industry has funded a new study, published in the British Medical Journal. The study, written by researchers funded by the tobacco industry, misrepresented data from the American Cancer Society (ACS), and used flawed methodology to come to the inaccurate conclusion that secondhand smoke does not cause an increased risk for lung cancer and heart disease. Don’t be fooled by Big Tobacco. Secondhand smoke kills.
    “The study is fundamentally flawed.”
    –British Medical Association1
    The British Medical Journal published a study in its May 2003 issue entitled, “Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-1998,” which was authored by Dr. James E. Enstrom and Dr. Geoffrey C. Kabat. The study claimed that no causal relationship was found between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related mortality, after analyzing data from 35,351 adults over a period of thirty-eight years. As one might expect, the study generated an enormous amount of media attention. Speculation abounded that the unanimous conclusion of public health officials and medical practitioners, that secondhand smoke is hazardous to health, had been premature. Big Tobacco and its allies hailed the study as proof that the adverse health effects of secondhand smoke are greatly exaggerated. Under closer scrutiny, the inevitable was found to be true: the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study was largely funded by tobacco industry dollars, conducted by industry allies, and riddled with methodological errors.
    Although the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study has now largely been discredited, the tobacco industry and its allies attempt to use the study to cast doubt upon the science of secondhand smoke. This document provides some basic information regarding the study, its funding, and its authors, and should help to counter any attempts to use the study to undermine the established body of research confirming the health hazards of secondhand smoke.
    THE STUDY
    “The editors believe that this opinion piece is full of speculative assumptions of doubtful scientific value. We could not judge the merits of your criticisms because your own data and methods were so inadequately described. I should add that your article contains pejorative comments that should have no place in responsible scientific discourse.”
    —Letter from the Journal of the American Medical Association to James E. Enstrom2
    The data and design of the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study has been widely criticized. Even the British Medical Association, the publisher of the journal that printed the study, described the research as being “fundamentally flawed.”3 The misuse of data and flawed methodology are two very significant faults in the study.
    Enstrom and Kabat did not gather original data for their study. Instead, it drew on data from the ACS’s Cancer Prevention Study (CPS-I), and used only a small subset (approximately 10%) of the total CPS-I data. Researchers at ACS repeatedly warned Enstrom that the data from CPS-I could not be used to determine the health effects of secondhand smoke, and they spoke out against the study upon its release, stating that their data had been misused.4
    The study used cohort methodology to look at the rate of mortality from heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmokers who were married to smokers, covering a time period from 1959 to 1998. A severe error in the study was the failure to establish a control group of nonsmokers who were unexposed to secondhand smoke. Other critical methodological flaws include not measuring for secondhand smoke exposure from any source other than the spouse, including workplace (where smoking was extremely prevalent at the time); not taking into account either spouse’s smoking status after 1972, though the study continued for 26 more years; and classifying the nonsmoking spouse as still exposed to secondhand smoke in that 26 year period, during which time the “smoking spouse” could have quit smoking or died, not to mention that they could have divorced or separated.
    THE FUNDING
    “A substantial research commitment on your part is necessary in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking.”
    – Dr. James E. Enstrom to Philip Morris Research Center5
    The Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study was initially funded by a grant from the Tobacco Related Disease Research Program, an organization that manages funds generated by the Proposition 99 California state cigarette tax. After the program’s scientific, peer-review panel, denied continued funding for the project, Enstrom sought out financial support from other sources. In 1997, he submitted an application for,6 and ultimately received, $210,000 from Philip Morris and the Council on Tobacco Research (CTR)7,8,9, a front group created in 1954 by the tobacco companies to fund research on smoking and health.10 It became well known over the years for sponsoring flimsy scientific research that promoted tobacco industry positions.
    THE AUTHORS
    “For the past three years, I have done consulting and research on passive smoking for Jeffery L. Furr of Womble Carlyle on behalf of RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris.”
    – Dr. James Enstrom to the Center of Indoor Air Research11
    Dr. James E. Enstrom: Enstrom has played down the support that he has received from the tobacco industry, but his involvement with the industry can be traced back for many years. As early as 1975, Enstrom solicited the CTR for $50,000 to “assess the possible role which other factors besides smoking play in the etiology of cancer.”12 The Competing Interests section of the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study states: “In recent years [Enstrom] has received funds originating from the tobacco industry for his tobacco related epidemiological research because it has been impossible for his to obtain equivalent funds from other sources.”13 Although the CTR, the Tobacco Institute, and Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) are all now defunct, Enstrom continued to contract with Philip Morris.14,15
    Dr. Geoffrey Kabat: Kabat’s connections with the tobacco industry over the years have been well documented. A search of internal industry documents finds Kabat’s name listed as an industry resource more than 7,000 times, showing his involvement with, among others, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, American Tobacco Company, and CIAR.16
    CONCLUSION
    Enstrom and Kabat’s substantial methodological flaws, combined with the tobacco industry’s funding of the study, and other studies supported by the tobacco industry, can help you to inoculate others against this misinformation. Over one hundred independently funded, peer-reviewed studies show that secondhand smoke exposure causes serious disease and death in nonsmokers. Don’t let this one study undermine the body of solid science that confirms the hazardous health effects of secondhand smoke exposure. For more information on Enstrom and Kabat or other studies that challenge the credible science of secondhand smoke, please contact us at (510) 841-3032 or at anr@no-smoke.org.

    Il Sindacato Inglese riporta i rischi nello uso di radiofrequenze

    ...
    e riporta una lista di azioni cautelative rivolte ai propri iscritti.

    ...  Chissà se i nostri sindacati hanno stesse attenioni ?!




    UK Trades Union Congress advises a precautionary approach to IARC 2B Carcinogens

    The Trades Union Congress in the UK has a document about carcinogens in the workplace (http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/occupationalcancer.pdf ). This offers guidance for all Trade Unions in the UK. In it they say ‘trade unions believe the aim should be to remove all exposure to any known or suspected carcinogen in the workplace .’ ‘Caution should be used to prevent exposure to substances in Group 2B .’ ‘The regulations are clear: that the first aim should always be to remove the hazard .’ ‘ Management Regulations and COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) lay down clear principles for prevention that must be followed when deciding what to do about a potential hazard. This means the first step must always be, where possible, to remove the hazard altogether – removing any cancer-causing hazards from the workplace .’ ‘There is a legal requirement on employers to only use a carcinogen if there is no reasonable alternative .’
    Alasdair Philips
    Don’s comment:
    Following this to the letter of the law, UK Unions should now be advising their members, as precautionary approach, to take steps to minimize their exposure to RF, which is classified as a 2B possible carcinogen. This could include:
    1) Don’t hold your mobile phone next to your head – use the speaker phone facility, use a hands free kit (with ferrite filter on the earpiece wire), use text messaging, and when there is no other option, keep conversations brief and to the point and return calls on a land line if possible. etc.
    2) Maintain conventional phone landlines in the workplace.
    3) Avoid the use of wi-fi in the workplace, use wired computers instead wherever possible.
    4) Avoid the use of DECT phones when held against the head and ensure that if they are used in the workplace, their cradle base stations (which emit pulsed microwaves constantly) are not placed in close proximity to where people work. Unlike mobile phones that have use adaptive power control, DECT phones always operate at full power and so not holding them next to the head is just as important as when using a mobile phone.
    5) And as children are the workforce of the future how about advice for children and parents on this issue?
    Don

    giovedì 16 giugno 2011

    Il Comune di Santa Monica (California) chiede di rivedere i limiti

    Il 'consiglio comunale' di Santa Monica in California (USA) alla luce della recente classificazione delle radiofrequenze tra i possibili agenti cancerogeni,
    ha chiesto agli enti federali una revisione dei limiti di esposizione .

    E in Italia ?
    _________________________________




    Press Release

    Contact info:
    Elizabeth Barris 310-455-7530
    contact@AmericanAssociationforcellularesafety.org

    In light of the recent classification of wireless radiation emitting devices as a Class 2 B carcinogen by WHO/IARC, last night at 1:00 AM, the Santa Monica City Council voted unanimously to request from both state and federal officials, proper evaluation of public health and safety standards including the possibility of putting warning labels on cell phones.  Councilman Mckeown placed the item on the agenda.  This is the first action taken by the city to raise awareness and protect public health regarding exposure to non-ionizing radiation from wireless devices.  Councilwoman Davis recused herself from the vote per her conflict of interest as an AT@T attorney.