Kiwivoice - Have your say today - Political discussion nz, Political Forum nz, Blog, Cultural discussion nz, Business nz, Sports nz, New Zealand, NZ Forums / Health & Beauty / Business Directory Online / Kiwi Business Directory / BIOPRO Consultant / Latest Posts

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:08:05 GMT

Study: Cell phones cause heart disease, kidney failure

BY CATEY HILL
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Tuesday, December 30th 2008, 10:33 AM

What would you do without your cell phone?! Well, you might be a bit healthier sans phone, according to a new study.

The European Research Institute for Electronic Components in Bucharest found that cell phones may lead to heart disease and kidney stones, according to Switched.com.

How is this possible? The study found that cell phones emit radiation, which causes red blood cells to leak hemoglobin, according to Softpedia.com. The hemoglobin then accumulates in the body, which can lead to health complications including heart disease or kidney stones.

This new study is just one in a series of studies about the ills of cell phone use. Researchers at Sweden's Lund University found that exposure to cell phone radiation could cause proteins and toxins to leak into the brain, according to Softpedia.com. This can lead to Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's.

And here's something even more disturbing: average cell phone ownership is up to two per person, according to Switched.com. That's a lot of extra radiation!

The Federation of the Electronics Industry claims that there is no conclusive proof that cell phones are a health hazard, according to Softpedia.com.

Your myBIOPRO.com web site:
www.myBIOPRO.com/brackenridge

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:02:22 GMT

How Cell Phone Microwaves Interfere With Your Body

From: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/06/why-can-t-you-use-your-cell-phone-on-a-plane.aspx?source=nl

There are likely very few places left on earth, save those areas that are sparsely populated or, say, at the bottom of the ocean, that are not being bombarded by microwave radiation and electromagnetic frequencies from wireless devices.

The risk of being exposed to these frequencies increases the closer you get to them, but that doesn't mean you need to be the one holding the cell phone or sitting next to the Wi-Fi router to be impacted. If cell phones are allowed on planes, for instance, those sitting around the person on a cell phone or laptop connected to the Internet will also be exposed to the microwaves.

But how, exactly, does this harm your health?

Your body is essentially a very sensitive electromagnetic instrument, controlled by highly complex and orderly oscillatory electrical processes. Each one of these electro-biological processes vibrate at a specific frequency -- some of which happen to be close to those used in modern GSM cell phone technology.

The pulsating, low-intensity microwaves from mobile phones can exert subtle, non-thermal influences on your body simply because microwaves are waves. As such, they have properties other than just intensity (which is the only part regulated by safety guidelines).

Therefore, much in the same way as a radio can receive interference, your biological processes can be interfered with by the oscillatory aspect of the incoming radiation.

Highly organized electrical processes at the cellular level are especially vulnerable to interference from cell phone radiation, because their frequency happens to fall within the microwave range.

Many of these biological activities are influenced by your metabolism, meaning the effect of the radiation will be different from one person to another.

The effect could also depend on the type of cell phone used, as different cell phones emit radiation at different frequencies.

Ultra-low intensity microwaves can affect processes as fundamental as cell division, and the TDMA frequencies of 8-34 Hz, and the DTX pulse frequency at 2 Hz, correspond to the frequencies of alpha and delta brain waves.

How to Protect Yourself From Cell Phone Radiation

I truly believe the widespread use of wireless devices is a public health disaster waiting to happen -- much like smoking turned out to be. So, I've written an entire book on the subject, which is due out in 2009.

Until then, here are my best guidelines to protect yourself from cell phone damage. Feel free to forward them on to your friends and loved ones, or print them out and post them someplace you see often.

* Children Should Never Use Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults, because of their thinner skull bones.

* Pregnant Women Should Also Avoid Cell Phones: Women who use mobile phones when pregnant may be more likely to give birth to children with behavioral problems.

* Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters.

* Use A Land Line At Home And At Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness.

* Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them every single time. If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are no safer during calls, but at least they do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made.

* Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception Is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.

* Turn Your Cell Phone Off When Not In Use: As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call.

* Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When It Is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.

* Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded -- and most of them are not -- the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient information carrying radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain. Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded. The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:25:44 GMT

Is your mobile phone putting your health at risk?

Taken from: The Daily Health, UK Edition

Shockwaves rippled through the cancer research community recently when Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute in the US, sent a memo to his staff warning that extended use of mobile phones may pose a cancer risk. His primary concern is that children and teens, whose brains are still developing, should strictly limit mobile phone use.

Of course, the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) position is typical: Go ahead and use mobile phones all you want. Risk is probably small. We'll let you know if research reveals any safety issues.

So...who are you going to believe?

Before you answer, let's take a look at a 2007 analysis of long-term mobile phone studies.

Can you hear me now?

An x-ray creates ionizing radiation - a type of radiation that can increase cancer risk by disrupting normal DNA activity in your body's cells. Mobile phones and microwave ovens emit non-ionizing radiation that does not affect DNA. So in theory, mobile phones don't cause cancer - not by prompting DNA damage at any rate.

But a 2005 study in Turkey showed that long-term exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RFEMF) from mobile phones could increase free radical levels in the brain, raising the risk of brain cancer. Again - nothing conclusive, just theory.

Which brings us to a study from Sweden's Orebro University.

The Orebro team examined two cohort studies (in which medical records for subjects who used mobile phones were compared to the records of subjects who didn't use mobile phones) and 16 case-control studies (in which mobile phone use among subjects with cancer was compared to mobile phone use among healthy subjects). All of the subjects who used mobile phones had used them for 10 years or more. The studies were conducted in the US, Japan, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany, and Britain.

Analysis of the research produced these results:
* Most of the studies found a link between mobile phone use and increased tumour risk
* Several studies found that mobile phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas - cancers of the cells that protect nerve cells
* Several studies found a link between mobile phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas - a benign tumour of the auditory nerve, which often results in deafness and balance problems
* Tumours are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the mobile handset is used
* One hour of mobile phone use per day significantly increases tumour risk after ten years or more

The good with the bad

There is a ray of good news here.

Professor Kjell Hansson Mild (one of the authors of the study) told The Independent newspaper, that newer mobile phones emit less radiation compared to phones that were on the market in the 90s.

But that's about it for the good news. Reports also indicate that previous research conducted by Professor Mild and his colleague Professor Lennart Hardell showed that consistent use of cordless phones present about the same risk as mobile phones in the development of malignant glioma and acoustic neuromas.

The professors note that the greatest risk is among children due to the relative thinness of their skulls and the fact that their brains and nervous systems are still growing.

And there's one more disturbing development. When I checked the web site for the American Cancer Society (ACS), I found a page titled "Do Cell [Mobile] Phones Cause Cancer?" Here's what the ACS has to say: "This represents a legitimate area of scientific controversy and should not be dismissed as a myth."

When an organization as seriously mainstream as the ACS doesn't rubber-stamp the mobile/cancer link as a myth, you know someone in the medical establishment is nervous about this topic.

FDA? Are you getting a clear signal here?

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson
HSI Director

Sources:

"Pittsburgh Cancer Center Warns of Cell Phone Risks"
Jennifer C. Yates, Seth Borenstein, ABC News, 7/23/08, abcnews.go.com

"Long-Term Use of Cellular Phones and Brain Tumours: Increased Risk Associated With Use For 10 years"
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 64, No. 9, September 2007, oem.bmj.com

"Public Health: The Hidden Menace of Mobile Phones" Geoffrey Lean, The Independent, 10/7/07, news.independent.co.uk

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:05:43 GMT

Does radio frequency radiation pose a cancer risk?

Researchers in the largest study to date won't say

by Melinda Wenner

Daniel Shattuck calls himself a soldier, and you might assume as much from his shaved head and six-foot, 210-pound frame. But he's never been in the armed forces. Instead, Shattuck has been reluctantly drafted to fight against something in his own body: a malignant brain tumour. "To me, it's a war," he says. "I'm at war with this thing every day."

Although Shattuck doesn't know for sure what caused his tumour - he's asked his doctor "a thousand times" but says he's never received a clear answer - he certainly has a theory: he worked as an operator and then as a technician for a phone company for thirteen years, and regularly used a cellphone for a good ten of them. Three of his former co-workers also have malignant brain tumours, and he suspects their cellphone use, too, is to blame.

Shattuck isn't alone in worrying about the effects of the devices. In May, speculation swirled that Massachusetts senator Edward Kennedy's brain cancer was linked to habitual cellphone use. Picking up on the rumours, cnn's Larry King Live devoted a show to the subject. On it, the neurosurgeon who treated US attorney Johnnie Cochran's brain tumour in 2005 said he would not rule out a link between cellphones and cancer. An issue that won't go away had resurfaced, and concern over cellphones causing or contributing to brain tumours went mainstream again.

The wireless industry adamantly denies the association. "The overwhelming majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals around the globe show that wireless phones do not pose a health risk," says a spokesperson for the ctia, a heavyweight international organization that represents the trillion-dollar wireless industry. Many scientists agree: the literature shows little evidence of a problem.

But what if the published science doesn't reflect what's really happening out there? And what if there has been a concerted effort to shield us from the evidence that does exist? Accounts from a handful of well-respected scientists suggest that since the mid-1990s wireless companies have been doing their best to bury worrying findings, discredit researchers who publish them, and design experiments that virtually guarantee the desired results. "Biological effects are undoubtedly there, no question, and it's a canard to suggest that they're not," says Abe Liboff, a research professor at Florida Atlantic University, and co-editor of the journal Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. The cellphone industry, he insists, "will use any excuse to avoid the truth."

Decades Long Frequent Use

Even so, a new possibility is emerging. Although cellphones appear to be safe when used sporadically, individuals who use them frequently for more than a decade may be vulnerable. Eight population-based studies published since 1999 indicate that heavy users are twice as likely to develop certain types of brain tumours as infrequent users. Citing recall bias and memory loss on the subjects' parts, critics reject such suggestions. Still, since cancer often takes decades to develop, other scientists wonder whether these findings are the first faint whispers of a public health crisis. After all, with an estimated three billion users around the world, cellphones have become ubiquitous.

In 1995, Jerry Phillips, a biochemist at the Pettis Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Loma Linda, California, received a call from the head of his biomedical research group. He and his co-workers were doing contract work for Motorola and the US Department of Energy on the effects of electromagnetic radiation, and Motorola, he says, needed a favour: higher-ups had learned of a study just published by University of Washington scientists Henry Lai and N. P. Singh showing that radio frequency fields similar to those emitted by cellphones damaged rats' brain cells, breaking their dna structures after just two hours of exposure. The company, Phillips says, wanted to discredit the study.

To Motorola, it didn't make sense that a cellphone could break dna. The ionizing radiation of X-rays and atomic bombs has enough energy to knock around electrons and cause genetic damage. But the radiation emitted by cellphones is non-ionizing, similar to radar, and thought to be too weak to do genetic harm. That is, while cellphone radiation fits within the microwave spectrum, it emits too little energy to significantly heat tissue. So how could cellphones, Motorola's reasoning went, possibly affect or harm the brain?

Nonetheless, Lai's research suggested they could, and his paper worried Motorola. Phillips recalls that the company asked him to "find ways to put a spin on it that was favourable to them and less favourable to Henry and N. P." He declined, but did agree to provide Motorola with comments on the study, and to conduct a similar trial if they were interested.

DNA Damage

They were. Phillips designed a comparable experiment to investigate how radiation emitted by cellphones affected dna in cells. He tested two slightly different radiation frequencies and exposure times, and found that in both cases the radiation did affect the cells' dna, albeit in significantly different ways: sometimes it increased the base level of dna damage typically seen in cells, and sometimes it lowered it. He wrote a report and sent it to Motorola with a note saying he wanted to publish the results and, if the company would fund him, design studies to further investigate his findings. A few days later, Mays Swicord, the director of electromagnetic research at Motorola, called him.

"He started questioning a lot of the results, pointing to what he called 'inconsistencies in data,'" Phillips recalls. "I pointed out that it's not unusual to see, with a single chemical agent, results go in one direction for one time period, and in the opposite direction for another." Phillips went on to explain to Swicord that long or heavy exposure to a toxin can initiate a cell's repair mechanisms, immediately fixing the damage. A shorter or lighter exposure might cause damage, but not enough to trigger the same repair mechanisms. In this manner, paradoxically, the lighter dose might be more dangerous.

Swicord, who has a background in bioelectromagnetics, wasn't convinced. "He suggested that I consider not publishing anything and that I do more work," Phillips says. "And I said no. I know when the project is done. I've been doing research for twenty-five years."

Their argument went on for weeks. Eventually, says Phillips, the head of his research group, Ross Adey, phoned him. Apparently under a lot of pressure, and worried that his group might lose Motorola's financial support if he didn't cooperate, Adey, says Phillips, "told me that if I didn't give Motorola what they wanted, it could be detrimental to my career." Phillips wouldn't back down. "This isn't about the group. It isn't about money," he told Adey. "It's about science."

Phillips refused to work on any further Motorola-funded projects, and in 1998, in the peer-reviewed journal Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, he published his dna study, which would be one of his last. That same year, the Department of Energy stopped funding the group's work on electromagnetic radiation effects. Phillips left Loma Linda and moved to Colorado Springs. Today he's the director of the Science/ Health Science Learning Center at the University of Colorado.

Lai, the soft-spoken University of Washington scientist who published the study that inspired Phillips' research, has also felt outside pressure. In a 1994 Motorola memo - obtained and published by the New York-based Microwave News - a corporate communications employee discussed how the company could discredit Lai's findings. The memo concludes, "I think that we have sufficiently war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue, assuming the Scientific Advisory Group and ctia have done their homework."

Shortly thereafter, an anonymous call was made to the National Institutes of Health, the agency funding Lai's work. The person charged that Lai was performing experiments outside the scope of his grant. The nih looked into the allegation but told Lai to continue his research. Then, he says, the scientific advisory group created by ctia to manage $25 million (US) in industry-donated research money sent a letter to the president of the University of Washington demanding that Lai and Singh both be fired. Lai wasn't, but soon after, all non-industry funding for related research dried up in the US. Like Phillips, he left the field.

Swicord, now semi-retired, admitted in an interview that he asked Phillips to collect more data, but insisted that Motorola eventually encouraged him to publish his findings. Similarly, the Motorola spokesperson acknowledged the "war game" memo, but told me that the company and the wireless industry in general have "demonstrated a strong commitment to high- quality research in the area of the safety of radio waves."

The industry has indeed funded a number of trials on the potential effects of cellphone radiation, but the results of those studies differ markedly from those funded by the government or other public agencies. In short, industry-funded research tends to show no cause for concern; the findings of other studies suggest a need for precaution.

In a paper published last year in Environmental Health Perspectives, Swiss researchers reported that of the studies published between 1995 and 2005, which investigated whether controlled exposure to radio frequency radiation affected humans, 82 percent of those funded by public agencies, and 71 percent of those funded by a combination of industry and public money, reported that there were effects; only 33 percent of the solely industry-funded studies did. The authors point out that scientists funded by public agencies may have an interest in finding a response in order to secure additional funding, but Lai doesn't buy this argument. Having shifted his research focus to finding cancer cures, he still follows the literature on cellphones, and has done his own analysis of 336 published papers. Industry-funded studies, he says, are roughly twice as likely as government-funded ones to conclude that cellphones are harmless. Phillips is also convinced that the industry either cherry-picks its data or designs studies to show nothing. "A lot of the studies that are done right now are done purely as PR tools for the industry," he says.

Recent epidemiological (population-based) studies comparing the cellphone habits of people with brain tumours to healthy individuals suggest that the frequency - and length - of use may indeed play a role in tumour development. "There's no indication, for people who use their phones for less than ten years, of an association between mobile phone use and these particular cancers," says Lawrie Challis, former chairman of the UK's Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme. But "knowing what happens in the short term tells you nothing about what happens in the long term."

Indeed, of thirteen epidemiological studies published since 1999 on cellphone use for more than ten years, eight suggest a two- to threefold risk increase.

Just the same, it's hard to publish convincing results from studies like these. For one thing, cellphones have only been popular for a decade or so, making it difficult to find enough subjects who've used them for long periods of time. Add to this the fact that brain tumours are rare, and it becomes almost impossible to produce data that show definitive statistics. Of the eight epidemiological studies that suggest a positive association, for instance, only three are large enough to be considered "statistically significant."

One way to circumvent these problems and acquire enough reliable data is to pool results from multiple trials. This is the idea behind Interphone, the largest study of its kind to date, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyons, France. Led by Canadian scientist Elisabeth Cardis, the project has analyzed some 6,400 tumours in thirteen countries. Here, too, however, mystery abounds. While results from some of the individual countries have been published, the pooled results - scheduled for release in 2006 - have not; Cardis says, "The interpretation isn't clear." In the January/ February issue of Microwave News, editor Louis Slesin writes, "The code of silence about Interphone must end. Public health demands it."

Early this year, Siegal Sadetzki, a scientist at the Chaim Sheba Medical Center in Israel, and a participant in the Interphone study, published her country's arm of the findings. Their report suggests that heavy cellphone users have a 50 percent increased risk of developing parotid gland tumours near the side of the head against which they hold their phones. "Significant risk is shown, and we should take this into consideration, because this technology is really, really, really prevalent," she says.

While Sadetzki advocates caution (noting "usually it takes a long time to develop solid cancers; ten years is really only the minimum"), others maintain that a two- or threefold increase actually does not represent a large overall risk. Malignant brain tumours are rare - about one in 14,000 North Americans is diagnosed with one each year - and even a doubling of the risk for individuals who use cellphones for a decade means only about one in 7,000 people. But what about those who use cellphones for thirty years, or kids who start using them when they're eight? No one knows.

Clearly, epidemiological studies in which scientists monitor the health and cellphone habits of large groups of people over extended periods of time are required. Properly constructed, such studies would solve problems of memory loss, recall bias, and other research-related challenges.

If the debate over whether cellphones are harmful is controversial, how they might be is even more so. Because cellphone radiation can't knock around electrons enough to cause dna damage or heat tissue, its biological effects are probably due to something heat independent or "non-thermal." However, no one knows yet how the radiation could do this, and many dispute that it does. Of the approximately 400 laboratory studies that have investigated whether exposure to radio frequency radiation affects dna in cells and/or animals, only about half report any effects.

Leif Salford, chair of neurosurgery at Lund University in Sweden, has repeatedly shown that exposure to two hours of cellphone radiation opens the bloodbrain barrier and causes brain-cell damage in rats. Other studies have shown that radiation affects biological pathways important for metabolism and stress responses. But what does this have to do with cancer? Although cellphone radiation, unlike uranium or plutonium, may not be powerful enough to cause tumours directly, it might, as Jerry Phillips suggests, indirectly lead to cancer by preventing dna repair mechanisms from working properly, and by producing free radicals, highly reactive molecules that can interact with dna in cancer-causing ways.

It may also be that cellphones don't seed new tumours, but instead promote or accelerate the growth of existing ones. In other words, cellphone radiation could be what is called a "tumour promoter," which would require less energy than tumour initiation. (Also, as people are already being bombarded by dozens of known environmental carcinogens, something that helps cancers grow is potentially a big problem.) In the first study Phillips conducted for Motorola, he used a chemical to make a tiny tumour and then looked at how radio frequency fields influenced its growth. "It did appear that these fields could affect already initiated tumours," he says. According to University of Massachusetts Amherst toxicologist Edward Calabrese, animals and cells respond differently and inconsistently to low-level toxic exposures, so varied findings are not surprising. At low levels, he says, the way a body reacts to exposures can be counterintuitive, just as in Phillips' experiment, where low exposures appeared to cause more damage than higher ones.

Probing these issues requires funding, but outside of the Interphone study interest seems to be flagging. The US government, which didn't participate in Interphone, has not announced any plans to fund epidemiological studies. The National Toxicology Program has provided $22 million (US) for a series of trials to be performed at the Illinois Institute of Technology, but these animal studies will investigate only whether healthy rats and mice exposed to cellphone radiation develop brain cancer - and they may not, if cellphones are only tumour promoters.

This is certainly not the first time a ubiquitous product has become a potential public health threat, and the big question is, how will it all play out? The cellphone industry could follow in the steps of Big Tobacco and continue to cast doubt on legitimate studies. Or it could adopt the science-minded approach of the automobile industry, which has responded to obvious public health dangers by engineering new technologies - the airbag, for instance - that minimize risk and attract the public's support.

In this era of Hollywood celebrities weighing in on international affairs, perhaps a media luminary like Larry King will call for long-term epidemiological research on the effects of habitual cellphone use. Or maybe good soldier Daniel Shattuck will discover the truth and broadcast it broadly; maybe he'll find a less hesitant doctor.

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=936

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:50:07 GMT

Amazing i-H20 Experiment / Testimonial

I thought I would tell you all about an experiment I performed that I found very exciting! I have been working in natural health now for over 20 years and have always been looking for ways to overcome ill-health for my clients. I use two energy machines – one is a QX scio and the other is ETASCAN. I performed the experiment using the ETASCAN.

After extensively reading up on the MRET technology and because I am giving a talk on it at a meeting tomorrow I thought I would conduct a little experiment of my own.

The ETASCAN is a machine that checks for energy blockages in the body and is very visual so you can see results straight away, via MRI-like pictures of the body. It is easy to gauge where blocks exist and you can find out why there are blockages which you can treat via homeopathic frequencies. The reason I chose this machine is because we can just run a test then come back to it and run another and compare the differences. So that is what I did – I asked my husband to sit for a test then after the test had run I asked him to drink 1 Litre of iWater, waited for 10 minutes and then ran another test. The results were amazing – every area in the body that had shown blockages was running perfectly and the energy was running optimally!

I was so amazed I thought I had better try this for myself; However, what I did for myself was to do it slightly differently. I ran a test as normal, had a litre of what I consider to be very good quality water (which we always use for making our iWater) – it is called Essential Water. Then I retested myself, there was very little difference in my energy level; I did this because I thought it might just be because of water! Then I took 1 litre of iWater then retested – wow! – I was blown away! My energy levels are now phenomenal, even in my spine the levels increased!

This is the most amazing product that I have ever come across; I am going to check out every one of my clients with this experiment, so I should be getting a few of them onto BioPro!! By the way every one of my cilents comes up with dehydration and electromagnetic field stress so you are selling two products (the iWater and the protection range) which I feel are the most important to help optimise people’s health.

K.C. (New Zealand)

Bio Energy Therapist

BioPro Technology Independent Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:55:54 GMT

2 Billion may Suffer from Mobile Cancer by 2020

Australian Health Research Institute Reports

New Delhi, Delhi, India, Friday, June 20, 2008 -- (Business Wire India)
The studies and survey conducted by Australian Health Research Institute indicates that due to billions of times more in volume electromagnetic radiation emitted by billions of mobile phones, internet, intranet and wireless communication data transmission will make almost 1/3rd of world population (about 2 billion) patient of ear, eye and brain cancer beside other major body disorders like heart ailments, impotency, migraine, epilepsy etc. According to the reports the tissues of children are tender and are likely to be more effected by use of any wireless gadget and devices and they should not be encouraged to use mobile phones. The fatal and volumetric effects of Electromagnetic Radiation emitted mainly by mobile phones, Mobile phone antenna, tower, Mast, Transmission Tower, Microwave oven, wireless devices, system and equipment. These dangerous effects have been certified and confirmed repeatedly by many leading medical and scientific research institutions of the world including Ministries of health of various governments, W.H.O. and now have been admitted and confirmed by Govt. of India in their recent press releases.

The attached image shows and proves about the serious ill effects of E.M. radiation released by Radiation Nuclear and Safety Authority of FINLAND as to how E.M. radiation emitted by mobile phones damages the various body cells and causes incurable and fatal diseases.

To view the photograph, please click on the link given below:
Potential new risk from mobile phones

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:30:44 GMT

By Tara Parker-Pope
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

June 5, 2008

What do brain surgeons know about cell phone safety that the rest of us don't?

Last week, three prominent neurosurgeons told the CNN interviewer Larry King that they did not hold cell phones next to their ears. “I think the safe practice,” said Dr. Keith Black, a surgeon at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, “is to use an earpiece so you keep the microwave antenna away from your brain.”

And CNN's chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon at Emory University Hospital, said that, like Black, he used an earpiece.

Along with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's recent diagnosis of a glioma, a type of tumor that critics have long associated with cell phone use, the doctors' remarks have helped reignite a long-simmering debate about cell phones and cancer.

That supposed link has been largely dismissed by many experts, including the American Cancer Society. The theory that cell phones cause brain tumors “defies credulity,” said Dr. Eugene Flamm, chairman of neurosurgery at Montefiore Medical Center.

According to the Food and Drug Administration, three large epidemiology studies since 2000 have shown no harmful effects. CTIA – the Wireless Association, the leading industry trade group, said in a statement, “The overwhelming majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals around the globe show that wireless phones do not pose a health risk.”

The FDA notes, however, that the average period of phone use in the studies it cites was about three years, so the research doesn't answer questions about long-term exposures. Critics say many studies are flawed for that reason, and also because they do not distinguish between casual and heavy use.

Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation, waves of energy that are too weak to break chemical bonds or to set off the DNA damage known to cause cancer. There is no known biological mechanism to explain how non-ionizing radiation might lead to cancer.

But researchers who have raised concerns say that just because science can't explain the mechanism doesn't mean one does not exist. Concerns have focused on the heat generated by cell phones and the fact that the radio frequencies are absorbed mostly by the head and neck. In recent studies that suggest a risk, the tumors tend to occur on the same side of the head where the patient typically holds the phone.

Like most research on the subject, the studies are observational, showing only an association between cell phone use and cancer, not a causal relationship. The most important of these studies is called Interphone, a vast research effort in 13 countries, including Canada, Israel and several in Europe.

Some of the research suggests a link between cell phone use and three types of tumors: glioma; cancer of the parotid, a salivary gland near the ear; and acoustic neuroma, a tumor that essentially occurs where the ear meets the brain. All these cancers are rare, so even if cell phone use does increase risk, the risk is still very low.

Last year, The American Journal of Epidemiology published data from Israel finding a 58 percent higher risk of parotid gland tumors among heavy cell phone users. Also last year, a Swedish analysis of 16 studies in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine showed a doubling of risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma after 10 years of heavy cell phone use.

“What we're seeing is suggestions in epidemiological studies that have looked at people using phones for 10 or more years,” says Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, an industry publication that tracks the research. “There are some very disconcerting findings that suggest a problem, although it's much too early to reach a conclusive view.”

Some doctors say the real concern is not older cell phone users, who began using phones as adults, but children who are beginning to use phones today and face a lifetime of exposure.

“More and more kids are using cell phones,” said Dr. Paul J. Rosch, clinical professor of medicine and psychiatry at New York Medical College. “They may be much more affected. Their brains are growing rapidly, and their skulls are thinner.”

For people who are concerned about any possible risk, a simple solution is to use a headset. Of course, that option isn't always convenient, and some critics have raised worries about wireless devices like the Bluetooth that essentially place a transmitter in the ear.

The fear is that even if the individual risk of using a cell phone is low, with 3 billion users worldwide, even a minuscule risk would translate into a major public health concern.

“We cannot say with any certainty that cell phones are either safe or not safe,” Black said on CNN. “My concern is that with the widespread use of cell phones, the worst scenario would be that we get the definitive study 10 years from now, and we find out there is a correlation.”

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:30:48 GMT

Paper on a cancer cluster at La Quinta Middle School.
From Lloyd Morgan:

STUDY REVEALS NEW UNDERSTANDING ABOUT ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS A CAUSE OF CANCER

A new study published in the July issue of the American Journal of Industrial Medicine reveals that “dirty power” (high voltage transients riding on the power supply lines) may be responsible for increased cancer rates. According to Dr. Samuel Milham, a leading epidemiologist and one of the study’s co-authors, “dirty power” is the likely cause of an unusual cancer cluster at La Quinta Middle School in southern California.

“Dirty power” consists of high-frequency voltage transients (or bursts of electrical energy) that travel along power lines and building wiring. Working with his co-author an electronic engineer Lloyd Morgan, Milham found that those teachers who had the greatest exposure to high-frequency transients also had the highest incidence of cancer. “The trend of more cancer with more exposure and with duration of employment is highly significant,” Milham said.

Milham and Morgan found that teachers at the La Quinta Middle School had close to three times the expected number of cancer cases over a 17-year period (1988-2005). Milham estimates that the odds against such a cluster are 10,000 to one. The incidence of malignant melanoma, a dangerous type of skin cancer, was ten times higher than expected, as was cancer of the thyroid and uterine cancer. The incidence of different types of cancer confirms earlier scientific evidence that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) may be a general human carcinogen.

The same pattern of cancer excess has also been found in a study of 250,000 members of the California Teachers’ Association and in teachers and office workers worldwide. These findings strongly suggest that this risk exists anywhere that people are exposed to electrical wiring carrying these transients.

Dirty power is a term coined by the utility industry, and is generated by electrical appliances and equipment such as compact fluorescent lights, halogen lamps, computers and other new electrical technologies which interrupt current flow. Milham believes that these transients are responsible for many of the health effects that were previously attributed to magnetic fields. Given the proliferation of potential sources of dirty power in homes and offices, these findings reveal that nearly everyone may be at risk of adverse health effects related to high frequency transients and electromagnetic fields.

The amount of transients —or the “dirtiness” of the power— in the wiring in the La Qunita school building was measured with a Graham/Stetzer meter, developed by Martin Graham and David Stetzer. Graham is an emeritus professor of electrical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. Stetzer is the founder of Stetzer Electric, a consulting firm in Blair, Wisconsin. The Graham/Stetzer device allows for more sophisticated measurement of high frequency transients than has previously been available to researchers.

Milham has been studying the links between EMFs and cancer for more than 25 years. In 1982, he was the first to link workers exposed to EMFs with higher rates of leukemia. This finding, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, encouraged many others to investigate the links between on-the-job exposure to EMFs and various types of cancer. His work on EMFs, as well as other occupational and environmental hazards, earned Milham the Ramazzini Award in 1997. This prestigious award is bears the namesake of Bernadino Ramazzini, who is widely recognized as the founder of occupational medicine.

“Our results point to a new way to understand the health risks of electromagnetic fields,” said Milham. “The real culprits are the high-frequency voltage transients that pollute our electrical networks. If we ever want to understand the threat posed by EMFs, we need to focus on dirty power.”

A copy of “A New Electromagnetic Exposure Metric: High Frequency Voltage Transients Associated with Increased Cancer Incidence in a California School,” published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/111085216/issue

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:13:05 GMT

Cell towers moved out of schools
27 May 2008, 0545 hrs IST,Somdatta Basu,TNN

KOLKATA: Cellphone towers could soon have to steer clear of schools and hospitals in Kolkata as the state environment department perceives them as a potential health and safety hazard.

A list of guidelines issued by the department has decreed that installation of base station antennas on the premises of schools and hospitals "may be avoided because children and patients are more susceptible to electromagnetic fields". The order, issued under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, mentions that antennas be avoided in narrow lanes to reduce the risks caused by an earthquake or wind-related disaster.

The environment department has specified that the antennas should be at least 3 metre from the nearest building and should not directly face it, and that the lower end of the towers should be at least 3 metre above the ground or roof. Barbed-wire fences should keep antenna sites barred to the public, it has said. And access to towers, the government has suggested, be kept to the minimum, even for maintenance personnel.

Cellphone firms have asked to put up warning signs and ensure that these are "clearly visible and identifiable". A warning sign has been prescribed at the entrance of such zone. Such signs should carry cautionary notes discouraging people — even maintenance personnel — from staying too long in the zone. The environment department has suggested that the sign boards may contain the following text: Danger! RF radiation, Do not enter!

Operators and maintenance personnel, who are dealing with radio frequency devices installed on towers and at any other outdoor sites should be protected from electromagnetic radiation, the state says. It has advised cellphone firms to educate personnel on the possible hazards from these devices.

Cellphone service providers were guarded in their response to the new guidelines. CEO of Vodafone Essar East Limited, Sridhar Rao said, "We are still studying the circular. I will have to check with the network officials who are currently dealing with the do’s and don’ts as mentioned in the notice."

But researchers felt it was still too early to reach a conclusion on the alleged harmful effects of cellphone towers. "These are still early days because cellphone towers were installed less than 10 years ago. You need to study an entire generation to come to a definite conclusion. But precautions are always welcome," said Abhijit Chakrabarti, scientist at the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics.

Senior law officer of environment department, Biswajeet Mukherjee said: "There were complaints from several districts. Many schools said mobile towers were being erected on their roofs and in nearby areas.

The guidelines have been prepared carefully after talking to many NGOs which came up with the documents related to health hazards," Mukherjee said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3075285.cms

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:12:11 GMT

BioInitiative's Hardell Finds Evidence Linking Gliomas and Heavy Cell Phone Use

OREBRO, Sweden-(BUSINESS WIRE)-Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, oncologist at the University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden, and an expert on cell phone use and brain tumors, believes there is strong evidence pointing to glioma brain tumors in people who are heavy users of cell phones over a period of years. Heavy cell phone use is defined as more than 2000 lifetime hours. Hardell’s review of studies of cell phone use and brain tumor incidence is found at:
http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/docs/section_10.pdf

Hardell says:
Long-term use of cell and cordless phones is associated with increased risk for glioma, a type of malignant brain tumor. For those who have used a cell phone predominantly on one side of the head (ipsilateral use) over a period of ten years or more, there is a consistently elevated risk of glioma.

Microwave News has tracked the results of the studies that make up the 13-country Interphone Project. Several have found an increased risk of glioma, like the type diagnosed in Senator Ted Kennedy, in people who used cell phones for 10 years or more. See: http://www.microwavenews.com/docs/SetInterphonefree.pdf. The French Interphone Study pointed to increased risk at only 260-467 hours of total lifetime use.

It is not the first time the disclosure that a prominent public figure fighting this deadly diagnosis has raised the question of whether long-term use of cell phones is linked to brain tumors. The death of attorney Johnnie L. Cochran prompted his neurosurgeon, Dr. Keith Black, MD of Cedars Sinai Hospital, to make the connection. Black said he believes there was a relationship between Cochran's heavy cell phone use and his death from a glioma in 2005.

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:09:50 GMT

Warning: Using a mobile phone while pregnant can seriously damage your baby

Study of 13,000 children exposes link between use of handsets and later behavioural problems

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/warning-using-a-mobile-phone-while-pregnant-can-seriously-damage-your-baby-830352.html

Sunday, 18 May 2008

Women who use mobile phones when pregnant are more likely to give birth to children with behavioural problems, according to authoritative research.

A giant study, which surveyed more than 13,000 children, found that using the handsets just two or three times a day was enough to raise the risk of their babies developing hyperactivity and difficulties with conduct, emotions and relationships by the time they reached school age. And it adds that the likelihood is even greater if the children themselves used the phones before the age of seven.

The results of the study, the first of its kind, have taken the top scientists who conducted it by surprise. But they follow warnings against both pregnant women and children using mobiles by the official Russian radiation watchdog body, which believes that the peril they pose "is not much lower than the risk to children's health from tobacco or alcohol".

The research – at the universities of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and Aarhus, Denmark – is to be published in the July issue of the journal Epidemiology and will carry particular weight because one of its authors has been sceptical that mobile phones pose a risk to health.

UCLA's Professor Leeka Kheifets – who serves on a key committee of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the body that sets the guidelines for exposure to mobile phones – wrote three and a half years ago that the results of studies on people who used them "to date give no consistent evidence of a causal relationship between exposure to radiofrequency fields and any adverse health effect".

The scientists questioned the mothers of 13,159 children born in Denmark in the late 1990s about their use of the phones in pregnancy, and their children's use of them and behaviour up to the age of seven. As they gave birth before mobiles became universal, about half of the mothers had used them infrequently or not at all, enabling comparisons to be made.

They found that mothers who did use the handsets were 54 per cent more likely to have children with behavioural problems and that the likelihood increased with the amount of potential exposure to the radiation. And when the children also later used the phones they were, overall, 80 per cent more likely to suffer from difficulties with behaviour. They were 25 per cent more at risk from emotional problems, 34 per cent more likely to suffer from difficulties relating to their peers, 35 per cent more likely to be hyperactive, and 49 per cent more prone to problems with conduct.

The scientists say that the results were "unexpected", and that they knew of no biological mechanisms that could cause them. But when they tried to explain them by accounting for other possible causes – such as smoking during pregnancy, family psychiatric history or socio-economic status – they found that, far from disappearing, the association with mobile phone use got even stronger.

They add that there might be other possible explanations that they did not examine – such as that mothers who used the phones frequently might pay less attention to their children – and stress that the results "should be interpreted with caution" and checked by further studies. But they conclude that "if they are real they would have major public health implications".

Professor Sam Milham, of the blue-chip Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, and the University of Washington School of Public Health – one of the pioneers of research in the field – said last week that he had no doubt that the results were real. He pointed out that recent Canadian research on pregnant rats exposed to similar radiation had found structural changes in their offspring's brains.

The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection says that use of the phones by both pregnant women and children should be "limited". It concludes that children who talk on the handsets are likely to suffer from "disruption of memory, decline of attention, diminishing learning and cognitive abilities, increased irritability" in the short term, and that longer-term hazards include "depressive syndrome" and "degeneration of the nervous structures of the brain".

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:08:09 GMT

Experts Revive Debate Over
Cellphones and Cancer

By Tara Parker-Pope

Published: June 3, 2008

New York Times

What do brain surgeons know about cellphone safety that the rest of us don’t?

Last week, three prominent neurosurgeons told the CNN interviewer Larry King that they did not hold cellphones next to their ears. “I think the safe practice,” said Dr. Keith Black, a surgeon at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, “is to use an earpiece so you keep the microwave antenna away from your brain.”

Dr. Vini Khurana, an associate professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University who is an outspoken critic of cellphones, said: “I use it on the speaker-phone mode. I do not hold it to my ear.” And CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon at Emory University Hospital, said that like Dr. Black he used an earpiece.

Along with Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s recent diagnosis of a glioma, a type of tumor that critics have long associated with cellphone use, the doctors’ remarks have helped reignite a long-simmering debate about cellphones and cancer.

That supposed link has been largely dismissed by many experts, including the American Cancer Society. The theory that cellphones cause brain tumors “defies credulity,” said Dr. Eugene Flamm, chairman of neurosurgery at Montefiore Medical Center.

According to the Food and Drug Administration, three large epidemiology studies since 2000 have shown no harmful effects. CTIA — the Wireless Association, the leading industry trade group, said in a statement, “The overwhelming majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals around the globe show that wireless phones do not pose a health risk.”

The F.D.A. notes, however, that the average period of phone use in the studies it cites was about three years, so the research doesn’t answer questions about long-term exposures. Critics say many studies are flawed for that reason, and also because they do not distinguish between casual and heavy use.

Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation, waves of energy that are too weak to break chemical bonds or to set off the DNA damage known to cause cancer. There is no known biological mechanism to explain how non-ionizing radiation might lead to cancer.

But researchers who have raised concerns say that just because science can’t explain the mechanism doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. Concerns have focused on the heat generated by cellphones and the fact that the radio frequencies are absorbed mostly by the head and neck. In recent studies that suggest a risk, the tumors tend to occur on the same side of the head where the patient typically holds the phone.

Like most research on the subject, the studies are observational, showing only an association between cellphone use and cancer, not a causal relationship. The most important of these studies is called Interphone, a vast research effort in 13 countries, including Canada, Israel and several in Europe.

Some of the research suggests a link between cellphone use and three types of tumors: glioma; cancer of the parotid, a salivary gland near the ear; and acoustic neuroma, a tumor that essentially occurs where the ear meets the brain. All these cancers are rare, so even if cellphone use does increase risk, the risk is still very low.

Last year, The American Journal of Epidemiology published data from Israel finding a 58 percent higher risk of parotid gland tumors among heavy cellphone users. Also last year, a Swedish analysis of 16 studies in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine showed a doubling of risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma after 10 years of heavy cellphone use.

“What we’re seeing is suggestions in epidemiological studies that have looked at people using phones for 10 or more years,” says Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, an industry publication that tracks the research. “There are some very disconcerting findings that suggest a problem, although it’s much too early to reach a conclusive view.”

Some doctors say the real concern is not older cellphone users, who began using phones as adults, but children who are beginning to use phones today and face a lifetime of exposure.

“More and more kids are using cellphones,” said Dr. Paul J. Rosch, clinical professor of medicine and psychiatry at New York Medical College. “They may be much more affected. Their brains are growing rapidly, and their skulls are thinner.”

For people who are concerned about any possible risk, a simple solution is to use a headset. Of course, that option isn’t always convenient, and some critics have raised worries about wireless devices like the Bluetooth that essentially place a transmitter in the ear.

The fear is that even if the individual risk of using a cellphone is low, with three billion users worldwide, even a minuscule risk would translate into a major public health concern.

“We cannot say with any certainty that cellphones are either safe or not safe,” Dr. Black said on CNN. “My concern is that with the widespread use of cellphones, the worst scenario would be that we get the definitive study 10 years from now, and we find out there is a correlation.”

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:57:34 GMT

Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection

CHILDREN AND MOBILE PHONES: THE HEALTH OF THE FOLLOWING GENERATIONS IS IN DANGER

Moscow, Russia
14 April 2008

For the first time in history, we face a situation when most children and teenagers in the world are continuously exposed to the potentially adverse influence of the electromagnetic fields (EMF) from mobile phones. Electromagnetic field is an important biotropic factor, affecting not just a human health in general, but also the processes of the higher nervous activity, including behavior and thinking. Radiation directly affects human brain when people use mobile phones. Despite the recommendations, listed in the Sanitary Rules of the Ministry of Health, which insist that persons under 18 years should not use mobile phones (SanPiN 2.1.8/2.2.4.1190-03 point 6.9), children and teenagers became the target group for the marketing the mobile communications. The current safety standards for exposure to microwaves from the mobile phones have been developed for the adults and don’t consider the characteristic features of the children’s organism. The WHO considers the protection of the children’s health from possible negative influence of the EMF of the mobile phones as a highest priority task. This problem has also been confirmed by the Scientific Committee of the European Commission, by national authorities of the European and Asian countries, by participants of the International scientific conferences on biological effects of the EMF.

Potential risk for the children’s health is very high:
- the absorption of the electromagnetic energy in a child’s head is considerably higher than that in the head of an adult (children’s brain has higher conductivity, smaller size, thin skull bones, smaller distance from the antenna etc.);
- children’s organism has more sensitivity to the EMF, than the adult’s;
- children’s brain has higher sensitivity to the accumulation of the adverse effects under conditions of chronic exposure to the EMF;
- EMF affects the formation of the process of the higher nervous activity;
- today’s children will spend essentially longer time using mobile phones, than today’s adults will.

According to the opinion of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the following health hazards are likely to be faced by the children mobile phone users in the nearest future: disruption of memory, decline of attention, diminishing learning and cognitive abilities, increased irritability, sleep problems, increase in sensitivity to the stress, increased epileptic readiness. Expected (possible) remote health risks: brain tumors, tumors of acoustical and vestibular nerves (in the age of 25-30 years), Alzheimer’s disease, “got dementia”, depressive syndrome, and the other types of degeneration of the nervous structures of the brain (in the age of 50 to 60).

The members of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection emphasize ultimate urgency to defend children’s health from the influence of the EMF of the mobile communication systems. We appeal to the government authorities, to the entire society to pay closest attention to this coming threat and to take adequate measures in order to prevent negative consequences to the future generation’s health. The children using mobile communication are not able to realize that they subject their brain to the EMF radiation and their health – to the risk. We believe that this risk is not much lower than the risk to the children’s health from tobacco or alcohol. It is our professional obligation not to let damage the children’s health by inactivity.

On behalf of members of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Chairman, Professor 46, Zhivopisnaya Str., 123182 Moscow, RUSSIA +7-499-193-0187 rcnirp@mail.ru

*NOTE: The original pdf file of this announcement is available from Emfacts upon request*

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=885

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:40:17 GMT

Bruce Armstrong, the head Interphone researcher in Australia, believes that there may indeed be a brain tumor risk among those who have used a mobile phone for ten years or more.

"Professor Bruce Armstrong admits to mobile phone hazards" was written on April 29, 2008 at 10:01 am on "EMFacts Consultancy".

A high-rating Australian commercial network has tonight, run a segment of its major prime-time current affairs program which raises the question of mobile phone safety.

The program is Today Tonight - shown at 7.30 pm on Channel 7 Monday 28 April 2008.

The main interview was with Dr Bruce Armstrong, who is currently the Professor of Public Health at Sydney University. The program said he is running the "Australian end of a 13 country World Health organisation research program into the safety of mobile phones."

[Don: Dr. Armstrong was also the head of the ABC Toowong breast cancer cluster expert panel - and who had arbitrarily dismissed a possible ELF/EMF connection with the disease.]

He is the main medical spokesman on cancer in Australia, and he has been very prominent over many years as being dismissive of any possibility that mobile phones could cause problems.

At one time he was also at the head of the Australian Cancer Council, and he is member of the National Health Medical Research Council (Australia's government funding body).

This is an accurate transcript of Armstrong's statements:

BA "I would not want to be a heavy user of a mobile phone."

BA "I think the evidence that has accumulated is pointing towards an
effect of mobile phones on tumours."

BA. "People might be shocked to hear that the evidence does seem to be
coming more strongly in support of harmful effects."

Q. So what sort of harm are you talking about ?

BA "By harm, I mean production of brain tumours, acoustic nerve tumours, and possibly Parotid gland tumours - because some of these tumours are certainly fatal.

VAGUE STATEMENT HERE ABOUT ACCUMULATING RESEARCH EVIDENCE

BA " ... What was found .. there was evidence of a two-fold increase
in risk of tumour.

Q. Do you think we should have waited ?[(presumably) before Australia allowed phones to proliferate]

BA. I think the horse was well and truly out of the gate and off into the forest before people even started to think.

===============================================================

There was also a segment in here about testing four purchased phones to see whether they conformed to the SAR standard of 2 watts per kilogram when up against the body, using a hands-free (Bluetooth or earphone extension) as distinct from using the phone against the side of the head.

The testing organisation was EMC Technologies. The EMC spokesperson was Chris Zombolas.

The standard SAR is supposedly limited to 2 watts/kg and the phones were 3 Gs.They tested the phones in contact within a Phantom (Jell) cell at 1800 and 2100 MHz
1. The cheapest they could find - Sagem and Vodafone 226: OK OK (both below 2)
2. Sony Ericsson W910I : 2.14w/kg: OK
3. Telstra HTV and Touchphone 850: 2.46 2.92
4. Nokia E65: 3.35 5.84

So 3 of the 4 exceeded the limit, and the Nokia at 2100MHz, according to these measurement is nearly 3-times the limit against the side of the body.

[Don: Stewart also was wary about these conclusions - I would add that using a 'phantom jell' to approximate the human brain is a totally inaccurate representation of the human brain - unless you happen to have a head filled with jello! Such crude measurements cannot pick up reflections and hot-spots in brain structures. And all this is only for SAR thermal effects. It is very crude and this is the usual method the manufacturers use to test phone compliance]

Zombolas claimed that if you read the fine print, it says that they fall within the standard only when the phone is between 1.5 and 2 cms away from the body.

[Don: The main point of the testing was to show that when using the Blue Tooth earpiece with the phone placed in a pocket next to the body, the SAR limits can be exceeded depending on how the phone is placed. According to Zombolas, the phones are designed to radiate most of the energy away from the body, or head. However if the phone is placed in a pocket with the faceplate pointing away from the body most of the radiation is absorbed - and at levels that can exceed the compliance limits.]

There was a short interview with Colin Roy from ARPANSA _ the government radiation testing lab, who said he was surprised and would look into it.

Then a piece with Mr Althaus of the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA) who said that this was no big deal since "The standards have a 50-fold safety margin".

[Don: Althouse also disagreed with Armstrong and stated that the scientific evidence indicated that mobile phones were safe.]

Stewart Fist, writer, columnist, film-maker
70 Middle Harbour Rd,

LINDFIELD NSW 2070

Australia
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=882

"Health Fears over Mobile Phones" is available for viewing on the Today Tonight web site under "Videos". Go to http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/home

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:01:11 GMT

Let The Men In Your
Life Know About BIOPRO!

The following Scientific Papers from 2002 -2007 suggest "use of cell phones decrease the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology. The data suggest that Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) emitted by cellular phones influence 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 sperm cell."

Many experts in this area advise that men of all ages keep cell phones out of their pockets and away from reproductive organs. They also recommend that they use a primary intervention such as the BIOPRO Cell Chip.

So read and take action.

MOBILE PHONES AND MALE FERTILITY: Scientific papers 2002-2007

1. M. Davoudi, C. Brossner and W. Kuber, The influence of electromagnetic waves on sperm motility, Urol Urogynaecol 19 (2002), pp. 18-22

"Our data suggest a decreased motility of rapid progressive spermatozoa caused by electromagnetic waves of GSM- mobile phones. These findings may have an impact in counselling subfertile men."

2. R. J. AITKEN, L. E. BENNETTS, D. SAWYER, A. M. WIKLENDT and B. V. KING. 2005. Impact of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation on DNA integrity in the male germline. International Journal of Andrology, 28(3):171-9

"This study suggests that while Radio Frequency and Electromagnetic Radiation does not have a dramatic impact on male germ cell development, a significant genotoxic effect on epididymal spermatozoa is evident and deserves further investigation."

3. FEJES I., ZA VACZKI Z., KOLOSZA R S, DARU J, KOVA CS L, PA L A. 2005. Is there a relationship between cell phone use and semen quality? Arch Androl, 51(5):385-93.

"The prolonged use of cell phones may have negative effects on the sperm motility characteristics."

4. STEFANIS P, DRAKELEY A, GAZVANI R, LEWIS-JONES DI. 2006. Growing concern over the safety of using mobile phones and male fertility. Arch Androl, 52 (1):9-14.

"There are many animal studies that show that electromagnetic waves have a wide range of damaging effects on the male reproductive system and sperm parameters."

5. EROGUL O, OZTAS E, YILDIRIM I, KIR T, AYDUR E, KOMESLI G, IRKILATA HC, IRMAK MK, PEKER AF. 2006. Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study. Arch Med Res. 2006, 37(7):840-3.

"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."

6. AGARWAL A, DEEPINDER F, SHARMA RK, RANGA G, LI J. 2007. Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study. Fertil Steril. 2007 May 3

"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."

7. WDOWIAK A, WDOWIAK L, WIKTOR H. 2007. Evaluation of the effect of using mobile phones on male fertility. Ann Agric Environ Med., 14(1):169-72.

"In the analysis of the effect of GSM equipment on the semen it was noted that an 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."

8. YAN JG, AGRESTI M, BRUCE T, YAN YH, GRANLUND A, MATLOUB HS. 2007. Effects of cellular phone emissions on sperm motility in rats. Fertil Steril., 88(4):957-64.

"These results suggest that carrying cell phones near reproductive organs could negatively affect male fertility."

9. DEEPINDER F., MAKKER K., AGARWAL A. 2007. Cell phones and male infertility: dissecting the relationship. Reprod Biomed Online., 15(3):266-70.

"Although previous studies suggested a role of cell phone use in male infertility, the mode of action of EMW (EMR) emitted from cell phones on the male reproductive system is still unclear."

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:17:37 GMT

What is MRET®?
MRET® is a patented, proprietary noise-field nano-technology, which has been substantiated in Medical Centers, Universities and Laboratories across the world.

How MRET® works

Powered by a hi-tech polymer, the particles within the MRET® compound - once stimulated by EMF/EMR - oscillate, emitting a low frequency noise-field that superimposes itself over the harmful high-frequency microwave radiation. Studies have shown that this process creates an incoherent, bio-friendly wave, thereby dramatically reducing the otherwise inappropriately triggered protective responses by the body’s key systems.

What ERT™ is
ERT™ is BIOPRO’s proprietary subtle energy technology. It is substantiated by Independent Researchers, Peer-reviewed studies, etc. ERT™ powers BIOPRO’s various subtle energy carriers in the categories of Personal Environment Products, Body Worn Products, as well as Nutritional Products.

How ERT™ works
While the presence of EMF/EMR disrupts communication across a person’s biofield, ERT™-charged carriers emit a subtle energy field, restoring vital communication across the biofield by assisting the transmission of signals that improve resistance to stressors and support key energetic functions in the body.

How MRET® and ERT™ work together
The proprietary, patented MRET® works hand-in-hand with BIOPRO’s proprietary ERT™, enabling a unique, dual-action effect for the product user. While MRET® works specifically on greatly reducing the impact of electropollution on the body, ERT™ is designed to substantially improve the body’s ability to compensate for damage caused by external stressors such as electropollution.

MRET® and ERT™ Research & Validation

Confirmation that "Noise Field" Technology Inhibits Dangerous Biological Responses has been substantiated in Medical Centers, Universities and Laboratories across the world:

Cedar-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, USA
University of Washington (Seattle)
Catholic University of America
University of Western Ontario (Canada)
Columbia University
Aarhus University (Denmark)
SI Biomedical Instrumentation Co., San Diego, USA
University of Toronto, Canada
Tex Chu Corp. Laboratory, Taipei, Taiwan
Research Institute for Applied Bioenergetics, USA
RF Exposure Laboratory, USA
Elsys Scientific Corp., S. Petersburg, Russia
Elixir Health Ltd., Singapore
Etc.

Scientific Publications, Conferences

The proprietary, patented MRET® and/or BIOPRO's proprietary ERT™ were featured in the following Scientific Publications and Conferences:

Explore Magazine, USA
RSO Magazine (Radiation Safety Associates), USA
Total Health Magazine, USA
Research Institute for Applied Bioenergetics, USA
The First Asian and Oceanic Congress for Radiation Protection (AOCRP-1), Korea (Abstract)
Asia-Pacific EMF Conference, Thailand (Abstract)
Biological Effects of EMFs 3rd International Conference, Greece (Abstract)
26th Annual Conference of Bioelectromagnetics Society, USA (Abstract)
Etc.

To order these products online please vist our website

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:13:48 GMT

MRET (Molecular Resonance Effect Technology)
Proprietary patented MRET shield technology helps prevent impact of EMR (Electromagnetic Radiation)--

Patent No. 6,369,399 B1 - 'Electromagnetic Radiation Shielding Material and Device'.

The man-made electromagnetic fields are structurally different from the electromagnetic fields found in nature--including the subtle low electromagnetic fields that our body's cells use to communicate with each other. The natural fields are RANDOM (or "noisy") in their frequency, amplitude and waveform, whereas the artificial EMFs are REGULAR and constant. For example, EMFs from cell phones appear as regular bursts of microwave radiation, EMFs from computer monitors are saw-tooth shapes, and EMFs from AC-powered devices are sinusoidal. Our cells respond negatively to such regular fields, become stressed, and try to protect itself.

Here's what happens when your cell is exposed to cell phone radiation:

A sensor in the membrane of the biological cell is triggered by the invading radio wave.
Once the membrane recognition occurs, a series of protective biochemical reactions are initiated inside the cell as a means of cellular protection.
Among these protective reactions are stress protein responses that serve to effectively “harden” the cell membrane and disrupt active transport.
The “membrane hardening” effect then causes an intracellular build-up of waste products and toxins, including highly reactive free radicals.
These free radicals have been shown in studies to result in both cellular dysfunction (evidenced by studies showing leakage in the blood-brain barrier following EMR exposure), and in interference with normal DNA repair processes (evidenced by studies showing the presence of micronuclei in cells following EMR exposure). These effects have been shown to lead to formation of disease. Several experiments have shown these effects eliminated when EMR exposure is removed.

EMF field has Constant properties.

Natural fields are Random.

Noise-field superimposed on
Constant field.

The proprietary patented MRET shield technology built into the Cell Chip avoids the adverse cell response by superimposing an optimal random field or 'noise field' on the bio-effecting electromagnetic field, thus making the resulting field random and the exposure neutral on a biological level. In other words, the EMR is no longer a signal to the cell, and no triggering results. This occurs without disturbing the function and operation of your cell phone--

The Cell Chip is made of a special polymer compound with high dielectric constant. In the presence of external electromagnetic field, the chip's MRET shield technology component emits subtle low frequencies (the 'noise field') of electromagnetic oscillations that resemble resonance frequencies of living cells in the body. These oscillations compensate and neutralize the harmful effects of EMR generated by cell phones and electronic devices while simultaneously providing support for cellular functions in the body.

The proprietary patented MRET shield technology does not reduce the intensity of EMR, it neutralizes the negative effects of EMR by changing the quality of the field rather than reducing the EMR intensity. Any type of device that claims to reduce or suppress EMR intensity can create even worse problems for the cellular structures of the body. First of all it will suppress the electromagnetic processes in the cells as these processes are thousand times weaker than EMR generated by any electronic appliances.

The noise-field technology was initially developed in a research funded by the US Army in 1986. The Army was concerned about the effects of radiation from communication equipment on key personnel. The research uncovered the connection between the constancy in EMF wave and the cell's trigger response. They then discovered that by superimposing a random field on the EMF wave, the EMF-induced biological effects are eliminated.

An American scientist, Dr. Igor Smirnov, developed and patented a version of the technology whereby the noise-field is activated by the electromagnetic field itself. In other words, it is generated only in the presence of an EMF wave. This 'passive' noise-field technology is a unique innovation, and is what is used in the Cell Chip. It requires no outside power source. (The Army version is 'active,' where the noise-field is generated using a power source.)

Tests demonstrating the effectiveness of the
proprietary patented MRET shield technology :

EEG Tests

Control EEG chart of subject not introduced to EMR of cellular phone

EEG chart of subject introduced to EMR of cell phone without any protection

EEG chart of subject introduced to EMR of cellular phone with MRET shield protection

Installation of proprietary patented MRET shield technology protection on the cellular phone synchronizes and slows down the brain function frequencies similar to normal mode of brain function. It makes the brain function frequency spectrum more coherent and optimized from the physiological point of view. This fact proves that the Cell Chip with MRET shield technology neutralizes the electromagnetic stress caused by the effect of a cellular phone on the brain. Tests were conducted at the laboratory of SA Biomedical Instrumentation Co., California. Details

Cranial Nerve Cell Test
This test was conducted to verify the immune system reactions to the exposure of human subjects to different sources of electromagnetic radiation with proprietary patented MRET shield technology protection and without such protection. Conducted by Tex Chu, Inc., Taiwan. Details

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:59:44 GMT

Here's an excellant attachment on the BIOLife product.

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:13:30 GMT

Interesting links!

http://www.emfacts.com/

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/149/2/135-a

http://www.mybiopro.com/NZ/?id=brackenridge

BIOPRO Consultant

bioproconsultant — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:23:33 GMT

BIOPRO's world class team of product sourcing and development experts have a mission - to strategically screen and formulate one-of-a-kind, breakthrough products designed for you to achieve a dramatic improvement in overall wellness. Each BIOPRO innovation plays a specific role in meeting your urgent need to elevate yourself above the chaotic conditions of modern life. Every application serves a specific beneficial purpose and is intended to synergistically enhance the benefits of all other BIOPRO products. Utilizing BIOPRO's proprietary Energy Resonance Technology (ERT) and the patented, proprietary Molecular Resonance Effect Technology (MRET), BIOPRO product users around the world report significant overall improvements in well being and a noticeable reduction of stress. BIOPRO has made a splash in the wellness industry that's heard, felt, and covered by media around the globe. Enjoy BIOPRO products, they are made with YOU in mind.

Personal Environment Products

			BIOPRO Cell Chip Innovative technology designed to assist you in dealing with environmental stress triggered by EMF. Available individually and in twin pack



			BIOPRO Universal Chip Designed to help you create a more harmonious living environment. Available in 2, 6 and 12 packs



			BIOLife Pendant THE future of body-worn applications designed to combat life's stressors, such as electropollution.



			Home Harmonizer Dual action technology designed to contribute to stress reduction and energy enhancement in your home and office. Available individually and in a 4 pack







			Smart Card BIOPRO Technology's newest product addition, the BIOPRO Smart Card is the smart way to energetically enhance any liquid.


	Nutritional Products

			iWater™ A complete system designed to maximize the effective use of iWater in your home and on the go.



			BIOProduce - Fruit & Berry, Vegetable is a concentrated whole food supplement bursting with the amazing health benefits. Available in 2 and 6 packs

To order these products online please vist our website

If you would like us to contact you regarding these products or distributing these amazing products please email us at info@brackenridge.biz

Kiwivoice - Have your say today - Political discussion nz, Political Forum nz, Blog, Cultural discussion nz, Business nz, Sports nz, New Zealand, NZ Forums / Health & Beauty / Business Directory Online / Kiwi Business Directory / BIOPRO Consultant / Latest Posts

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

Let The Men In Your Life Know About BIOPRO!

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

RE: BIOPRO Consultant

BIOPRO Consultant

Let The Men In Your
Life Know About BIOPRO!