|
| | | 
Active Member
 
Group: Gold Kiwivoice Business Online Owner
Last Login: 5/01/2009 4:07:26 p.m.
Posts: 20, Visits: 32 |
| | 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. 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 |
| |
| | |
Active Member
Group: Gold Kiwivoice Business Online Owner
Last Login: 5/01/2009 4:07:26 p.m.
Posts: 20, Visits: 32 |
| | |
| | |
Active Member
Group: Gold Kiwivoice Business Online Owner
Last Login: 5/01/2009 4:07:26 p.m.
Posts: 20, Visits: 32 |
| Here's an excellant attachment on the BIOLife product.
|
| |
| | |
Active Member
Group: Gold Kiwivoice Business Online Owner
Last Login: 5/01/2009 4:07:26 p.m.
Posts: 20, Visits: 32 |
| 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 |
|
| |
| | |
Active Member
Group: Gold Kiwivoice Business Online Owner
Last Login: 5/01/2009 4:07:26 p.m.
Posts: 20, Visits: 32 |
| 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 |
|
| |
| | |
Active Member
Group: Gold Kiwivoice Business Online Owner
Last Login: 5/01/2009 4:07:26 p.m.
Posts: 20, Visits: 32 |
| 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."
|
| |
| | |
Active Member
Group: Gold Kiwivoice Business Online Owner
Last Login: 5/01/2009 4:07:26 p.m.
Posts: 20, Visits: 32 |
| 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 laceName w:st="on">SydneylaceName> laceName w:st="on">UniversitylaceName>. 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 |
| |
| | |
Active Member
Group: Gold Kiwivoice Business Online Owner
Last Login: 5/01/2009 4:07:26 p.m.
Posts: 20, Visits: 32 |
| 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
|
| |
| | |
Active Member
Group: Gold Kiwivoice Business Online Owner
Last Login: 5/01/2009 4:07:26 p.m.
Posts: 20, Visits: 32 |
| 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.” |
| |
| | |
Active Member
Group: Gold Kiwivoice Business Online Owner
Last Login: 5/01/2009 4:07:26 p.m.
Posts: 20, Visits: 32 |
| | 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". |
| |
|
|