Cellphones, Breast Cancer and Baby’s Brains
I had an interesting experience recently when giving a craniosacral therapy session to a woman who had just come back from a doctor’s appointment. In passing she mentioned it was a mammogram. It didn’t register with me until later when I was completely wiped out and developed an unusual rash on my chest that I put the two together. [When doing a deeply resonant therapy it is best not to work on someone who has just been radiated–note to self!] I have been uncovering more and more information lately demonstrating that low frequency EMFs are especially damaging to breasts and gonads. No wonder we have an epidemic of both breast and prostate cancer!
Not only that but as the paper below points out, the ‘standards’ for the levels of permissible radiation levels are based on adult males, not taking into consideration the difference in thickness of skulls in kids and adults. I had another experience recently talking to a lady on the bus who was bragging to me about her new company sponsored smartphone. When I asked her if she had heard about the studies clearly showing a 40% increase in brain tumors after just using the phone for 30 minutes a day, she immediately dismissed it all as poppycock and nonsense, “just like all those other tales about how microwave ovens were bad for you.”
The world is still clearly mainly insane. We have to change our habits, cellphones are actually more dangerous than cigarettes, their ‘second hand radiation’ causes a lot more damages then second hand smoke. Yet we give these wireless killers to our children and think it is cute.
Your bra is not the place to keep your cellphone. Dr John West MD Founding director of Breast Care and Imaging Centre of Orange County tells us why:
October 16th, 2011
This paper describes how cellphones are certified to meet the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) exposure limit for the maximum amount of microwave cellphone radiation that will be absorbed in the head or other parts of the body of a cellphone user. The only trouble is that the industry-designed certification process so under-estimates the actual absorption of cellphone radiation that all cellphone users who keep their cellphone in their pockets absorb cellphone radiation above the FCC exposure limit. Further, even if not kept in pockets, when held next to the head, 97% of the population will exceed the certified level of absorbed radiation, and even more so for children who will absorb more than two times the certified cellphone radiation.
That’s the bad news. The good news is that this paper describes an alternative FCC approved process already used extensively within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The alternative process uses MRI-scans of a set of real human beings to determine the amount of radiation absorbed in every tissue. It is called, the “Virtual Family” and includes a 5-year old girl, a 6-year old boy, an 8-year old girl, an 11-year old girl, a 14-year old boy, a 26-year old female, a 35-year old male, an obese male adult and 3 pregnant women at 3rd, 7th and 9th months of gestation, allowing for appropriate cellphone certifications for the most vulnerable cellphone users.
In contrast, the existing cellphone certification process uses a plastic mannequin head, SAM, of a very large man with a liquid inside the mannequin which assumes all tissues in the head are identical. A robot positions a sensor within the liquid and calculates the maximum Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) with a tolerance of +30%. The FCC exposure limit is SAR=1.6 Watts per kilogram of tissue (1.6 W/kg). Because of the wide tolerance range, SAR values can be as large as 2.08 W/kg, 30% higher than FCC exposure limit.
The paper provides a history of how exposure limits have been developed over several decades and continues with an exposition of chronic cellphone health effects (humans, animals and human cells) reported in science papers. It then describes the two FCC-approved processes for cellphone certification: the existing cellphone process (exclusively used) and the MRI-based computer simulation process (never used for certification). Next it compares the efficacy of the two processes.
The paper explains in detail that the existing exposure limit process is so far from the original intent that we can only wonder what happened! Here are some examples:
- The intent of the ANSI standard was to protect everyone, “from small infant to large adult,” but the FCC exposure limit only protects large adult males.
- There has been no change in the standard since 1991. Sadly, the 1991 standard allowed for a 5-fold higher exposure for workers “as a concomitant of [their] employment,” while pretending to increase the “safety” factor for the general public. However, this change allowed for the general public to be exposed 5-times longer than workers, thus nullifying any difference between workers and the general public.
- The original intent of the exposure limit was to protect those with “greater sensitivity (infants, the aged, the ill, and disabled), [from] greater exposures (24 hr/day vs. 8 hr/day…[and] voluntary vs. involuntary exposures.” Today, this is totally ignored. Everyone is exposed involuntarily 24/7, including infants and even fetuses in the womb.
- The current cellphone certification process was designed by industry. A single cellphone is brought to a certification facility with no knowledge how this particular cellphone was chosen (randomly, or selected from many because its radiation levels were lower). Though millions of “certified” cellphones may be sold, no further testing is ever done! Is this enforcement of the regulation, or is it turning a blind eye to enforcement?.
- In those countries that use the ICNRIP exposure guidelines, there is no oversight to protect the citizens whatsoever. For example, the UK’s Health Protection Agency makes this very clear when it states, “There is no explicit UK legislation that limits people’s exposure.”.
- It is clear that sperm is being damaged by cellphones when men keep cellphones in trouser pockets, but no warnings have been given to the public about this quite common practice.
- The higher risk to children is clear: Children absorb twice that cellphone radiation to the heads, up to triple in the their brain’s hippocampus and hypothalamus, greater absorption in their eyes, and as much as 10-times more in their bone marrow when compared to adults.