New Acidic Neurotoxic Sweetener from Monsanto!

Neotame, New Neurotoxic Sweetener: FDA Says No Label Needed, Not Even in Organics

A Monsanto-created chemical, Neotame is likely more toxic than Aspartame. The FDA has quietly decided that we don't have the right to know if it's adulterating our food, not even if the food is labeled USDA Organic.

by Heidi Stevenson

2 January 2011

Aspartame can step aside. There's a new sweetener in town and it isn't saddled with the inconvenience of having to be listed on labels, so it can be sneaked into any prepared food, even USDA so-called Organic. So sayeth the FDA. Neotame is a Monsanto-created chemical similar to Aspartame, including its neurotoxic properties.

Monsanto developed Neotame as their Aspartame patent was expiring, and had no trouble in gaining FDA approval in 2002. They added 3-dimethylbutyl, a chemical listed as hazardous by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to Aspartame, making it both sweeter and more toxic.

Toxicity

Both Aspartame and Neotame contain substances that are metabolized into formaldehyde, a highly toxic poison, and an excitotoxic amino acid that agitates, thereby damaging, nerves.

At the time Neotame was originally approved by the FDA, Feingold.org, which battles the addition of many dodgy food additives, stated:

We did a search of MedLine to find studies of adverse effects or side effects of Neotame. Only four studies appeared, two of which were not studies, and the other two of which were actually a single study done by NutraSweet company researchers.

Feingold aptly described one of the nonstudies as effectively saying, "If we don't look, we won't know anything bad." The other, by the World Health Organization, is not a look at potential toxicity, but rather is about setting acceptable daily intakes of Neotame, along with other artificial sweeteners. Note: One must wonder how the FDA justifies non-listing of an ingredient for which there's an acceptable daily intake.

Mary Nash Stoddard, founder of the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network, compared the historic arc of tobacco company research with that of Aspartame. It applies equally well to Neotame:

There is a parallel issue with which to compare the Aspartame issue. That of cigarettes and the deadly effects of smoking. The massive Tobacco Industry is able to produce large volumes of scientific studies showing smoking does not cause: lung cancer, heart disease, strokes or death. Today, mainstream science accepts the fact that smoking can be deadly and addictive. So it is with Aspartame, whose approval was based, not on scientific fact, but as an issue of public policy.

Neotame Labeling

From the beginning, Neotane labeling has been limited. It's in the background noise of products produced by Agribusiness.

Up to this time, Neotame hasn't been sold to the public, but that hasn't been necessary. It's been used widely in prepared foods. So, the less awareness the public has, the less likely it is that people will try to avoid it. For the most part, the technique has worked. Now, very quietly, the FDA has decided that the public shouldn't be informed when Neotame is included in any product. Even Organic products, which are supposed to be unadultered with chemicals, are not required to state when Neotame is inside.

India will soon serve as guinea pigs for Neotame. It will soon be launched there as a tabletop sweetener, like Equal and Splendor, by NutraSweet, which owns and sells the product.

Neotame is now being marketed as Sweetos for use in cattle feed. Molasses has been utlized to get cows to eat foods made unpalatable by chemical additives. Neotame is both less costly than molasses and subject to fewer regulations. How do you like that? A natural food is more stringently regulated than a known-poisonous chemical that's put into food.

The reach of Neotame is likely to be extensive. They're planning to replace other artificial sweeteners with it. A major seller of artificial sweeteners, which goes by the misleading name of Ensigns Health Care Pvt Ltd, intends to use it in place of sucralose.

In the EU, Neotame has been approved by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA). As is so common in the EU, the product is hidden behind an E-number. So, labels don't have to say that products contain Neotame. They only need to list "E 961". Naturally, with hundreds of E-numbers, how many people can be aware of which ones are truly dangerous?

It looks like the FDA's loosening of labeling rules for Neotame is part of a large-scale effort to make it a near-ubiquitous artificial sweetener, to be found on the tabletop, in all prepared foods—even organics—and even in the meats consumed.

The solution is fairly simple, but not necessarily easy. If you want to avoid foods adulterated with Neotame, among other dangerous additives and overprocessing, then you need to grow your own foods and prepare them yourselves, or purchase only from suppliers whose processing and sourcing is known to you, which generally means locally-produced.

Read the original article on Gaia Health at:

http://bit.ly/ycJGKo

Continue lendo

FDA’s New Claim: “Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It!”

FDA’s New Claim: “Your Body Is a Drug"

In another outrageous power-grab, FDA says your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states!

We wish this were a joke, but it’s the US Food and Drug Administration’s latest claim in its battle with a Colorado clinic over its Regenexx-SD™ procedure, a non-surgical treatment for people suffering from moderate to severe joint or bone pain using adult stem cells.

The FDA asserts in a court document that it has the right to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Clinic for two reasons:

1. Stem cells are drugs and therefore fall within their jurisdiction. (The clinic argues that stem cell therapy is the practice of medicine and is therefore not within the FDA’s jurisdiction!)
2. The clinic is engaging in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to FDA regulation because any part of the machine or procedure that originates outside Colorado becomes interstate commerce once it enters the state. Moreover, interstate commerce is substantially affected because individuals traveling to Colorado to have the Regenexx procedure would “depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by FDA.”

We discussed the very ambiguous issue of interstate commerce last September—it’s an argument the FDA frequently uses when the basis for their claim is otherwise lacking. As we noted then, the FDA holds that an “interstate commerce” test must be applied to all steps in a product’s manufacture, packaging, and distribution. This means that if any ingredient or tool used in the procedure in question was purchased out of state, the FDA would in its view have jurisdiction, just as they would if the final product had traveled across state lines.

This time the FDA just nakedly says in court documents that the agency wants to protect the market for FDA-approved drugs. No more beating around the bush—their agenda is right out in the open! This appears to be a novel interpretation of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C), as evidenced by the government’s failure to cite any judicial precedent for their argument.

The implication of the FDA’s interpretation of the law, if upheld by the court, would mean that all food, drugs, devices, and biologic or cosmetic products would be subject to FDA jurisdiction. The FDA is expanding its reach even to commerce within the state, which we argue is far beyond its jurisdiction, in order to protect drug company profits.

Last year we ran a two-part series on the current status of federal and state law—and FDA jurisdiction—and how it affects integrative treatments (part one and part two).

The Centeno-Schultz Clinic takes your blood, puts it into a centrifuge machine that separates the stem cells, and a doctor puts them back in your body where there is damaged tissue. The clinic has argued numerous times that stem cells aren’t drugs because they are components of the patient’s blood from his or her own body.

The FDA says otherwise: “Stem cells, like other medical products that are intended to treat, cure, or prevent disease, generally require FDA approval before they can be marketed. At this time, there are no licensed stem cell treatments.” There they go again, saying that components of your body are drugs and they have the authority to regulate them! It’s the only way the agency can claim that adult stem cell therapy is within FDA’s purview.

However, the agency seems to be of two minds. When ESPN magazine was doing a story on stem cell treatments, the FDA stated that US policy is to allow the injection of stem cells that are treated with “minimal manipulation,” which federal regulations define as “processing that does not alter the relevant biological characteristics of cells or tissues”—which is certainly the case with the Regenexx clinic.

Despite this policy, FDA has been attacking the clinic for the past four years. They have tried injunctions and demanded inspections in their attempts to make the company bend; this court battle is merely the latest salvo.

The primary role of adult stem cells in a living organism is to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found. The hard part has been to get enough of them. But new technology is giving doctors the ability to obtain more stem cells from a patient than previously thought possible, which is why we’re now seeing new treatments. Blood, fat, or tissue is withdrawn from the patient, stem cells are obtained using one of these new processes, and the cells are injected back into the patient where they can repair the patient’s tissue.

Gov. Rick Perry received this kind of stem cell therapy. We and others noted that the governor’s defense of freedom of healthcare choice when it came to his own treatment was starkly at odds with his directive to administer HPV vaccines to young girls against their own (and their parents’) wishes. It’s also at odds with his support for some of the most egregious witch-hunters on the Texas State Medical Board, which he appoints.

Behind Perry’s blatant inconsistency and the latest FDA attempted power grab lies the same problem: a medical system run by special interests under the leadership of the US government, the same government that is supposed to represent “we the people.”

Continue lendo

Dr Young is Nominated for the "Best In Alternative" Medicine

Dear Joshua N Anna Scurry and the Alive Organization, thank you for the honor of your nomination for the "Best in Alternative" medicine. Thank you for considering me for this wonderful honor.

http://web.alivenewyork.com/dr-robert-young-nomination.html

Continue lendo

Greek Study Shows EMF Impacts the Brain Related to Learning, Memory and Alzheimer's

Greek Study Shows Regions of the Brain Related to Learning, Memory, Alzheimer's Impacted by EMF

A Greek study led by Adamantia Fragopoulou and Lukas Margaritis has demonstrated important protein changes in the brain of animals following whole body exposure to RF electromagnetic fields, similar to the kind of microwave radiation emitted from cell phones, portable phones, WiFi and wireless computer equipment. The study, was published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, Early Online: 1-25, 2012.

Important regions of the brain necessary for learning, memory and other functions of the mammalian brain were impacted by the microwave radiation, including the hippocampus, cerebellum and frontal lobe, at exposures below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) safety guidelines. A total of 143 proteins in the brain were impacted by the RF radiation over a period of 8 months, providing new evidence for a potential relationship between everyday cell phone use, wireless transmitters and wireless computer equipment and electrosensitivity symptoms, such as headaches, dizziness and sleep disorders, as well as with tumors, Alzheimer's and even metabolic effects.

The study simulated 3 hours of cell phone exposure over eight months, 8 hours of DECT portable phone exposure over eight months, and included a sham exposure control group. The results showed both down regulation and up regulation of the proteins.

Several neural function related proteins (i.e. Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein (GFAP), Alpha-synuclein, Glia Maturation Factor beta (GMF), and apolipoprotein E (apoE)), heat shock proteins, and cytoskeletal proteins (i.e. neurofilaments and tropomodulin), were shown to be impacted by the radiation, as well as proteins of the brain metabolism (i.e. Aspartate aminotransferase, Glutamate dehydrogenase), in nearly all of the brain regions studied.

Figure 2 from the study shows the 143 proteins that have changed (up- or down-regulated) and their functional relationship based on a literature survey.

Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, M.Sc., PhD Candidate, in the Dept of Cell Biology and Biophysics at University of Athens, Greece, lead author of the study, says, "Our study is important because it shows for the first time protein changes in the mouse brain after EMF exposure and in particular in very crucial regions like hippocampus, cerebellum and frontal lobe, all involved in learning, memory and other complicated functions of the mammalian brain. We have demonstrated that 143 proteins are altered after electromagnetic radiation, including proteins that have been correlated so far with Alzheimer's, glioblastoma, stress and metabolism. In its perspective, this study is anticipated to throw light in the understanding of such health effects like headaches, dizziness, sleep disorders, memory disorders, brain tumors, all of them related, to the function of the altered brain proteins

Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD, Professor Emeritus (as of Sept 2010) of Cell Biology and Radiobiology, Dept of Cell Biology and Biophysics, University of Athens, head of the Athens research group, says, "A high throughput approach (mass characterization of biomolecules, similar to microarrays that analyze the total genes of an organism) as that of the Proteomics* has never been used so far in EMF research of BRAIN TISSUES following whole body exposure of model animals (mice) at SAR values below ICNIRP's recommendations. It is also the first time that wireless DECT phones base radiation is involved in lab animal studies and specifically in such molecular effects. The message taken out of this work is that people should be very cautious when using mobile phones next to their body (especially next to their brain), whereas the wireless DECT should be located as far away as possible from places that people use to spend many hours a day, not to mention children of all ages."

PRESS RELEASE RELEASED BY UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS TEAM

Athens, Greece. January 21, 2012. The research group of Professor Lukas Margaritis (Faculty of Biology, University of Athens and the Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens), within the framework of the activities seeking for the truth underlining the possible effects of daily life electromagnetic fields, has performed this study as part of the Doctorate Dissertation of Adamantia F. Fragopoulou.

Using ordinary working conditions of mobile phone and wireless DECT base and by applying state of the art proteome science approaches, they demonstrated that a large number of major brain proteins have been changed. Namely proteins that are responsible for the integrity of brain functions, in such critical regions like hippocampus, cerebellum and frontal lobe are below normal levels whereas an equally large number are found well above physiological levels. These “underexpressed” or “overexpressed” proteins may play a role in the short term or long term effects reported as a consequence of mobile phone exposure, including memory deficits, headaches, sleep disorders, brain tumors.

As pointed out in the “DISCUSSION” section of the paper, the possible start-up events may involve the production of ROS (reactive oxygen species) leading to oxidative damage (as suggested recently by Blank and Goodman of Columbia University in New York City); heat shock protein activation; and finally, changing the expression of a large number of brain proteins, as was demonstrated in this study.

The Fragopoulou et al. study is the first large-scale analysis of the mouse brain proteome to be published so far. The research team having recently been awarded a large “Thalis” grant is potentially aiming in elucidating the EMF effects from the molecular level up to the organism level, exploiting the most suitable model systems (mice, insects, nematodes, lizards, cell cultures, human skin).

Published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, Early Online: 1–25, 2012 Copyright Q Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.

Abstract:

Brain proteome response following whole body exposure of mice to mobile phone or wireless DECT base radiation
Adamantia F. Fragopoulou1, Athina Samara2, Marianna H. Antonelou1, Anta Xanthopoulou3, Aggeliki Papadopoulou3, Konstantinos Vougas3, Eugenia Koutsogiannopoulou2, Ema Anastasiadou2, Dimitrios J. Stravopodis1, George Th. Tsangaris3 & Lukas H. Margaritis1
1Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Athens University, Athens, Greece, 2Genetics and Gene Therapy Division, Center of Basic Research II, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece, and 3Proteomics Research Unit, Center of Basic Research II, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of two sources of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on the proteome of cerebellum, hippocampus, and frontal lobe in Balb/c mice following long-term whole body irradiation. Three equally divided groups of animals (6 animals/group) were used; the first group was exposed to a typical mobile phone, at a SAR level range of 0.17- 0.37 W/kg for 3 h daily for 8 months, the second group was exposed to a wireless DECT base (Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications/Telephone) at a SAR level range of 0.012- 0.028 W/kg for 8 h/day also for 8 months and the third group comprised the sham-exposed animals. Comparative proteomics analysis revealed that long-term irradiation from both EMF sources altered significantly (p , 0.05) the expression of 143 proteins in total (as low as 0.003 fold downregulation up to 114 fold overexpression). Several neural function related proteins (i.e., Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein (GFAP), Alpha-synuclein, Glia Maturation Factor beta (GMF), and apolipoprotein E (apoE)), heat shock proteins, and cytoskeletal proteins (i.e., Neurofilaments and tropomodulin) are included in this list as well as proteins of the brain metabolism (i.e., Aspartate aminotransferase, Glutamate dehydrogenase) to nearly all brain regions studied. Western blot analysis on selected proteins confirmed the proteomics data. The observed protein expression changes may be related to brain plasticity alterations, indicative of oxidative stress in the nervous system or involved in apoptosis and might potentially explain human health hazards reported so far, such as headaches, sleep disturbance, fatigue, memory deficits, and brain tumor long-term induction under similar exposure conditions.

Continue lendo

Are Electric or Hybrid Cars Cancer Causing?

If you frequently use or are in close proximity to cell or cordless phones, computers, fluorescent lights, hair dryers, microwave ovens, televisions, x-ray machines, frequent flyer, drive a hybrid or electric car or other electrical devices, then you should be aware of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommendations for safe exposure to EMF. The standard unit used in measuring EMF intensity is “Gauss.” Potentially harmful and cancer causing EMF emitted from many common household sources are measured in milligauss (mG) units.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended levels for safe exposure to EMF range from .5 mG to a maximum of 2.4 mG – with 1.0 mG as a preferred standard. Adverse human and animal biological effects have been found at 2.5 mG.

Here are eight acidic toxic sources that may be harmful to your health.

1) Computers: 4 tp 20 mG

2) Hair Dryers: 60 to 20,000 mG

3) Microwaves: 100 to 500 mG

4) Television: 5 to 100 mG

5) Cell phones: 15 to 300 mG

6) Airplanes: Over 100 mG by the engines can exceed over 500 mG

7) Hybrid Cars: Over 100 mG

8) Electric Cars: Can exceed 300 mG.

Continue lendo

Are Cell Phones Cancer Causing?

With the use of cell phones and other wireless devices on the rise, concerns have been raised about possible associated health risks, especially cancer (if you’ve been keeping up with our articles about wireless health risks, skip to the next paragraph). Over the years, numerous studies have been conducted to assess relative risk of thermal health effects like cancer and non-thermal health effects like immune system response; however, diverse results have prevented across-the-board conclusions about whether standards governing wireless emissions should be revised in order to protect public health. Many experts advocate the practice of precautionary cell phone use, and almost all agree, “more research is necessary.”

Recently, though, two studies have been published that give researchers more tangible information to sink their teeth into about the immediate physiological effects of cell phone use, specifically how it affects heart and brain function. In 2010, Havas, et al. demonstrated that talking on a cordless phone (which operates at the same radio frequency, or "RF," as WiFi) can directly impact heart function; forty percent of Havas' study participants experienced changes in heart rhythm, heart rate, or heart rate variability after exposure to cordless phone emissions during three-minute intervals. This year, Nora Volkow, M.D. and her research group published data showing that 50 minutes of cell phone use causes the region of the brain closest to the phone antenna to utilize more glucose for fuel. Although the clinical significance of increased glucose metabolism remains to be determined, this finding proves that cell phone use impacts how our brains function.

The Volkow Study: Cell Phone Use Linked to Changes in Brain Function

Throughout 2009, Volkow’s group conducted a randomized crossover studywith 47 healthy participants, testing the effects of 50 minutes of cell phone use on the subjects' brain activity. The researchers conducted two separate experiments on each study participant, both of which involved placing cell phones on each of the participant’s ears, then measuring how his or her brain metabolized glucose using positron emission tomography (PET scans) with injections of (¹⁸F)fluorodeoxyglucose. The study participants were “blinded” as to whether both of the cell phones were turned off, or the one on the right was turned on and receiving a prerecorded text (with the sound muted). Overall, Volkow’s group found that exposure to cell phone radiation caused brain cells closest to the antenna to metabolize more sugar than they would when not exposed to the RF radiation.

Do the Results Indicate that Cell Phone Use is Harmful?

Not surprisingly, Volkow’s group concluded that “more research is necessary” to determine if increased glucose metabolism in response to RF exposure actually increases risk of health problems. The basic results of this study are monumental, though. Because altered cell physiology must be shown in order to prove the possibility of related health effects, demonstrating a link between altered brain activity in the human model and cell phone use proves that cell phone radiation may cause non-thermal health effects in the human brain.

Interestingly enough, Volkow’s group determined that increased glucose metabolism in brain cells was a secondary effect. In other words, exposure to RF emissions caused some other primary effect(s) which led to brain cells using more sugar than they normally would. The researchers hypothesized that enhanced excitability of brain tissue, neurotransmitter release, increased cell membrane permeability, calcium efflux, and disruption of the blood-brain barrier could all be primary effects.

In an editorial related to the study (and published in the same issue of JAMA) Professor Henri Lai, expert on non-thermal effects associated with non-ionizing radiation, and Professor Lennart Hardell, expert on environmental toxins and cancer development, noted several important findings in the 2011 Volkow et al.study. One of which was, that the increased glucose metabolism effect is probably not caused by heating of tissues. Rather, since the brain regions affected were closer to the antenna, rather than the phone itself, the changes were due to RF energy emitted from the antenna when connecting to a base station signal, not the heating of the phone itself (skin temperature can increase up to 2 degrees Celsius after 10 minutes of contact with an operative phone). Hardell and Lai also suggested that more research be done to address whether regular use of cell phones and other wireless technologies could cause chronicincrease in brain glucose metabolism, and, if so, how such increase would impact health.

Increased Brain Glucose Metabolism and EHS?

Numerous individuals, deemed as having “electrohypersensitivity” (“EHS”) by authorities, have reported symptoms including headaches, cognitive difficulties, dizziness, heart palpitations and arrhythmias when exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). By demonstrating that acute exposure to RF emissions can cause heart beat irregularities in human subjects, the Havas group recently created a tangible nexus between exposure to RF emissions and arrhythmia, which had been a frequently reported, yet "unproved," EHS symptom. If a connection can be made between increased brain glucose metabolism and neurological EHS symptoms, then the Volkow study may prove to be another valuable piece of the puzzle surrounding mechanisms of possible non-thermal health effects associated with RF exposure.

Glucose on the Brain: Food for Thought...

• Glucose, a simple sugar, is a primary food source for the body, especially for the brain. Our digestive systems break down carbohydrates into glucose molecules which are then carried through the blood to be escorted into cells by insulin. The amount of glucose in the blood affects the amount of insulin released by the pancreas, and ultimately affects overall hormonal balance in the body. Could a chronic increase in the metabolism of glucose in the brain eventually place a person at greater risk of insulin related health issues?

• When we are “stressed,” our sympathetic nervous systems are activated and setting off physiological “fight or flight” responses, more glucose becomes available in the blood as a quick source of energy for the body. Increased glucose metabolism in the brain may indicate that cells respond to RF emissions as “stressors,” and that cellular stress response is the primary mechanism behind non-thermal effects.

• Cancer cells thrive on sugar. They rely on anaerobic (i.e. without oxygen) respiration to break down glucose molecules into fuel. Could increased glucose metabolism in brain cells be linked to the development of brain cancer?
  

As the Volkow group concluded, more research is necessary to establish whether actual health risks are associated with increased brain glucose metabolism due to cell phone use. Given what we've just learned from this study, practicing precautionary cell phone (as well as cordless phone and WiFi) use seems the smartest option until we learn more about long-term effects. Use text messaging instead of calling, whenever possible, utilize the speakerphone function when making or receiving calls, and limit children's use to emergencies.

References and Resources:

• Volkow ND, Tomasi D, et al. Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism. JAMA. 2011;305(8):808-813. [Abstract]

• Lai H, Hardell L. Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure and Brain Glucose Metabolism. JAMA. 2011;305(8):828-829. [Extract]

• EMF Studies showing links between RF emissions and possible non-thermal health effects

© 2011 Heart MD Institute, PA

Continue lendo

Cell Phone Hazards: The End of an Era Part 2

In Cell Phone Hazards: Part I, we discussed the safety standards surrounding cell phone radiation and why they are inadequate to protect us against risk of potential adverse health effects. In short, the standards:

• Do not account for cell phone use by children and teens, who are generally more susceptible to health effects of radiation;
• Do not protect against risk of non-thermal health effects;
• Are outdated; and
• May reflect industry bias.

In this article, we provide more detailed information about non-thermal effects associated with cell phone radiation and how they may be endangering your health. Exploration of non-thermal effects as possibilities, rather than certainties, provides a logical foundation for adopting a precautionary approach toward use of cell phones and other wireless technologies.

Why are Cell Phones Potentially Dangerous?

Cell phones emit electromagnetic radiation within the radio frequency (RF) range of the electromagnetic spectrum, which encompasses radio waves and microwaves. RF energy, which is also used for radio and television broadcasting, wireless internet use and microwave cooking, is non-ionizing energy. On the other end of the spectrum are Gamma-rays and X-rays, which emit ionizing energy. Ionizing energy is powerful enough to strip electrons from atoms and cause damaging health effects such as DNA mutations and cancer. While RF energy is non-ionizing, exposure to high levels of it can cause rapid heating of, and damage to, body tissues; this is the principle behind microwave cooking. Biological changes caused by quick tissue heating are known as “thermal” effects.

When establishing safety standards governing the amount of RF radiation cell phones may emit, regulatory organizations and agencies considered only the risk of thermal effects that cell phone radiation may have on our cells. Regulators did not take into account the risk of adverse health effects associated with “non-thermal” biological effects caused by exposure to lower levels of RF energy; the existing information on non-thermal effects was too complex and the relevance to human health too uncertain (ICNIRP Guidelines).

Just because cell phones are not “cooking” our brains and skulls, though, doesn’t mean they get a clean bill of health…

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC), the U.S. agency in charge of regulating cell phones and other consumer wireless devices, has acknowledged that, “in general, while the possibility of 'non-thermal' biological effects may exist, whether or not such effects might indicate a human health hazard is not presently known.” The agency continued by stating, “further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health" (OET Bulletin 56).

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)

Despite regulatory protection against thermal effects, a small, but significant, percentage of people have reported health problems that are believed to be caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF), for example from cell phone towers, WiFi and cordless phones. Authorities have labeled this group of people as having “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” or EHS. Common symptoms reported by people with EHS include heart palpitations, dizziness, nausea, digestive disturbances, fatigue, tiredness, difficulty concentrating, and skin irritation.

Cellular Stress Response

It’s quite possible that cellular stress response, which is thought to cause non-thermal biological effects, is at the root of the EHS phenomenon. In vitro studies suggest that, in response to low levels (i.e. below existing cell phone radiation standards) of RF energy, some of our cells produce stress proteins (heat shock proteins) as a protective mechanism, and thus perceive wireless radiation as a threat to cellular function. Cellular stress response activates DNA and protein synthesis, which demonstrates the possibility, if not proof, of altered cell physiology, or non-thermal biological effects.

As cellular stress response serves the body best as a short-term protective mechanism, chronic or continual stress response may result in diminished response and protective effect, which could increase cell vulnerability to damage. As such, researchers have hypothesized that chronic cellular stress response can eventually cause damaging non-thermal effects such as leakage of the blood-brain barrier and toxicity of the brain, suppression of the immune system, cardiac disturbances, DNA damage, and even cancer. As subtle as the wireless threat itself, non-thermal biological effects associated with it may begin as cell sensitivities which develop into greater systemic issues.

Wireless Emissions: A Subtle, yet Serious Threat

Compare EKG rhythms on the left, which show the heart’s electrical activity, to the audio waveform on the right.

We are bioelectrical beings by nature, and our hearts and nervous systems are especially vulnerable to electrical disturbances. Wireless radiation, with its non-harmonious jagged waveforms, can disturb our natural biorhythms. From a cardiac perspective, wireless radiation may affect the rate and rhythm of our heartbeats, which can cause arrhythmias, or heart palpitations; some complex or malignant arrythmias can lead to sudden death.

Heart rate variability is a measurement of the beat-to-beat alterations in heart rate, which can indicate whether a person is in a chronic state of sympathetic arousal, or overly stressed, and is used to help determine risk of cardiac events. New research indicates that use of a cordless phone can disturb HRV. Conversely, through a recent study on grounding researchers have learned that placing one's feet in direct contact with the Earth's electromagnetic field supports HRV (Chevalier, et al.). Serindipidously, the researchers also observed that grounding supports zeta potential, the electrical force bewteen red blood cells (RBCs), and that exposure to wireless radiation correlates with RBC stacking; remember that viscous blood increase one's risk of strokes or heart attacks. Wireless radiation may also interfere with our neurological electrical impulses, causing difficulty concentrating and other cognitive issues. These effects might be systemic manifestation of cellular stress response. (For more information about electromagnetic effects on HRV and blood viscosity, read Grounding for a Healthy Heart.)

Cellular Stress Response and the Blood-Brain Barrier

Scientists have also hypothesized that cell phone and other wireless radiation induces a stress response in human endothelial cells (which form the lining of blood vessels), which may compromise function of the blood-brain barrier. The blood-brain barrier performs a gatekeeper function by allowing nutrients and waste products into and out of brain cells while preventing toxins in the bloodstream from getting in. Impaired function of the blood-brain barrier, then, can lead to toxic permeation of the brain, which ultimately damages brain cells. Some researchers believe that this leakage underlies the alarming increase in autism over the last decade.

Immune System Dysfunction

Much like cellular stress response, the body’s immune system also reacts to wireless radiation as if it is a threat. Under currently permitted standards, RF emissions can cause inflammatory and allergic reactions. It follows that chronic exposure to cell phone and WiFi radiation could lead to health problems associated with inflammation. Inflammation, which can lead to cellular, tissue and organ damage over time, is now thought to be the primary precursor to most degenerative diseases. An immune system burdened with chronic inflammatory and allergic reactions lacks optimal resources with which to respond to other reparative tasks, which sets the stage for immune system dysfunction.

DNA Damage

DNA damage, which can be caused by a variety of factors including exposure to ionizing radiation and oxidative stress, is a primary cause of cancer. When DNA damage exceeds the body’s ability to repair it, the damaged cells can start reproducing themselves without eventually dying, causing the formation of tumors.

Mixed results from in vitro and animal model studies, have led researchers to hypothesize that cell phone radiation exposure could damage DNA and/or reduce its reparative ability. Slightly more than 50 percent of studies have demonstrated significant effects on DNA, while the rest have not. This split has resulted in some researchers advocating the precautionary principle, and others dismissing the hypothesis that low-level RF radiation can damage DNA. In the BioInitiative Report, Henri Lai, Ph.D explained that discrepancies in these study findings may occur as a result of different exposure conditions, as well as general differences in the way the particular cells or organisms studied respond to EMF.

As mentioned earlier, ionizing radiation can break chemical bonds within molecules, which damages DNA. Since cell phone radiation under current safety standards lacks sufficient energy to do this, researchers have theorized that any possible DNA damage is through indirect or secondary changes in cell physiology. One of the mechanisms by which cell phone radiation may lead to DNA damage is by enhancing free radical activity within cells, especially nerve cells.

The good news is, if cell phone radiation does increase free radical activity in cells, eating foods rich in, or supplementing with, antioxidants could help protect against possible DNA damage. It follows that grounding, which supplies the body with free electrons with which to counteract free radicals, could also help protect against the possible cancerous effects of cell phone radiation.

Obviously, more research is necessary to state with any certainty that cell phone radiation damages DNA; without conclusive proof that it doesn’t, though, isn’t precautionary use the smartest option?

Discrepancy about Standards Related to Thermal Heating

Cell phone radiation may also be dangerous under current Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) standards because of a basic misconception about the nature of thermal effects. SAR standards are based on the risk one’s entire body temperature increasing by more than 1 degree Celsius. As body temperature often fluctuates in this manner throughout the course of normal physiological processes, cell phone radiation which induces biological effects by raising body temperature up to 1 degree Celsius is considered harmless.

The problem with this standard is that it doesn’t account for localized heating of body tissues, such as in the brain, caused by cell phone radiation. Have you ever felt your ear or side of your face get hot when talking on your cell phone? You can bet the temperature of your entire body has not been similarly raised. As whole body heating happens gradually, your cells have time to generate protective responses; with localized heating, radiation can penetrate unprotected tissues. Hence, even under safety standards designed to protect against thermal effects, cell phone radiation may be causing them locally.

Rationalizing the Precautionary Principle

Cell phone use has indeed exploded over the past decade. In light of such widespread use, any health risks connected to cell phones pose threat of a public health crisis. The “weight of” existing studies does not prove either safety or adverse health effects associated with cell phone use, which has led to a general divide in thinking. While some people entirely dismiss evidence from studies which do link cell phone radiation to adverse health effects, others advocate the Precautionary Principle based on possibility of such effects, especially with regard to children.

Under the Precautionary Principle, the threat of plausible, serious and irreversible hazards to public health from exposure to particular environmental stimuli justify public policy action to reduce such exposure; even though scientific uncertainty or ignorance may preclude findings of a true hazard, waiting for such proof may be more damaging to public health in the long run. With cell phone and other wireless radiation, there is the possibility of adverse health effects under currently permitted standards, and RF radiation may actually alter cell physiology through a combination of thermal and non-thermal effects.

As health problems due to non-thermal and thermal effects can take years to fully develop, and regulatory agencies may take years to update the safety standards, practicing the precautionary principle by limiting exposure to cell phone and other radiation is simply a matter of common sense.

References and Resources:

• The BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF). BioInitiative.org, August 31, 2007:
  • Lai, Henry. Section 6: Evidence of Genotoxic Effects - RFR and ELF Genotoxicity.
  • Blank, Martin. Section 7: Evidence for Stress Response (Stress Proteins).
  • Johansson, Olle. Section 8: Evidence for Effects on the Immune System.
  • Gee, David. Section 16: The Precautionary Principle.

• "Full Statement of Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc." U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Hearing: "The Health Effects of Cell Phone Use. Appropriations.senate.gov, Sept. 14, 2009.

• World Health Organization (WHO). “Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity.” Who.org. Accessed Jan. 14, 2011.

• The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology. “Questions and Answers About Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” OET Bulletin 56; Fourth Edition: August 1999.
  

• The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIPR). "Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (Up to 300 GHz)." Health Physics 74: 494-520 (1998).
  

• Havas M, Marrongelle J, et al. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4 GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system.Eur. J. Oncol. Library Vol. 5, 2010.
  

• Chevalier G, Sinatra ST, et. al. Emotional Stress, Heart Rate Variability, Grounding and Improved Autonomic Tone: Clinical Applications. To be published in Integrative Medicine: A Clinician's Journal, Feb/Mar. 2011.

• Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones.“The Stewart Report: Mobile Phones and Health," May 11, 2000; Section 5: Scientific Evidence

• Sinatra ST. The Sinatra Solution: Metabolic Cardiology (Basic Health, 2008).

• U.S. National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute. “Cell Phones and Cancer Risk.” Cancer.gov, accessed Jan. 14, 2011.

• Barris, Elizabeth. “The Legislator’s Guide to Warning Labels on Cell Phones and the Layman’s Guide to the Science Behind Non-Thermal Effects From Wireless Devices and Infrastructure.” Citizensforsafetechnology.com, Dec. 23, 2010.

• Valberg PA, van Deventer TE, Repacholi MH. Workgroup Report: Base Stations and Wireless Networks - Radiofrequency (RF) Exposures and Health Consequences.Environ Health Perspect. 2007 March; 115(3): 416–424.

© 2011 Heart MD Institute, PA

Continue lendo

Cell Phone Hazards: The End of an Era Part 1

Regulating Cell Phone Emissions (RF Energy)

As cell phones and cell phone base stations are considered transmitters regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the FCC is the federal agency that sets radio frequency (RF) energy exposure limits for cell phones on the market.¹ In August 1996, the FCC adopted limits for “safe” exposure to RF energy based on Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) value, and began requiring cell phone manufacturers to comply with these limits before marketing their phones. SAR value is a measure of the rate at which body tissue absorbs RF energy when a person uses a cell phone. It is solely based on risk of “thermal effects,” or biological effects caused by the heating of bodily tissues. The FCC currently requires that wireless phones adhere to a safety limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram.

Origins of SAR Value Standards

When establishing SAR limits, the FCC did not conduct any scientific research about the relative safety or harm of cell phone use. Instead, the FCC relied on recommendations made by two expert organizations, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, as well as opinions given by other federal agencies, like the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Seems thorough enough, right?But none of these organizations and agencies actually performed scientific research on the issue either; rather they based their recommendations and opinions on review of existing scientific literature documenting RF biological effects.

As multi-agency and organizational review of pre-1996 scientific literature is the basis for our current standards, it’s in our best interests to ask about the source of this research. While the U.S. Department of Defense has funded military research on the issue (radar and other high-powered radio transmitters involved in routine military operations utilize RF energy), much of the non-military research on the biological effects of RF energy has, unfortunately, been funded by industry organizations such as Motorola, Inc. Without significant scientific research from impartial sources, then, can we really trust exposure limits set by the FCC?

Why are Current Cell Phone Safety Standards Insufficient?

Current FCC SAR value regulations do not sufficiently protect us against potential health hazards for several reasons: (1) they are outdated and do not account for different rates of RF absorption by children and adolescents; (2) they do not account for possible non-thermal health effects; (3) SAR varies with proximity of source radiation; and (4) the standards may reflect industry bias.

1. The Standards are Outdated and Do Not Account For Use By Children and Teens

Cell phone usage patterns, as well as technologies, have changed dramatically since safety standards were established. Approximately four billion people worldwide are now using cell phones with more evolved technologies than those on the market in the 1980’s and 90’s. Industry experts estimate that cell phone use in the U.S. increased from 13 to 91 percent between 1995 and 2009.² While a rise in popularity of cell phones does not, in and of itself, render current SAR values obsolete, it seems to correlate with greater frequency of use, which does affect efficacy of the 1996 standard.

Over the past decade, adults and children alike have been spending more time conversing on cell phones. In 2003, average use among Americans increased by 19 percent: from 14 to 17 minutes per day. In 2008, minutes of use averaged almost 26 minutes per day.³ In a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study, American children (ages 8 to 18) averaged 33 minutes per day talking on their cell phones.⁴While we don’t know whether these minutes were used continuously or spread throughout the day on various calls, the amount is concerning when examined under the existing safety standard.

The 1996 standard reflects 6 minutes of (continuous) exposure to cell phone emissions by a large man. Since, in the Interphone Study, 30 minutes of daily useby adults was linked to increased risk of brain cancer, and experts believe children are at much greater risk than adults because their tissues are not yet fully developed, the rise in minutes of use among children is of serious concern. The current SAR standard desperately needs revision to reflect current usage patterns and technologies, as well as how RF emissions specifically affect children and teens.

Additionally, the 1996 standard was based on studies that could not have accounted for the latency of brain cancer (see Legislative Awareness of Cell Phone Safety). While brain cancer often takes decades to develop, cell phones were not available until at least the 1980’s. Studies conducted in the 1980’s and 90’s necessarily could not have been used to accurately assess cancer risk associated with cell phone use. More recent studies (if free of other methodological limitations and biases) might provide a more reliable determination of any link between cell phone use and cancer.

2. The Standards Do Not Account for Possible Non-Thermal Adverse Health Effects.

It is well known that exposure to ionizing (high frequency) RF energy can rapidly heat body tissues and cause serious biological effects like cancer. The current regulatory position is that cell phone towers, wireless Internet, cordless phones, power lines and other sources of RF emissions (including microwave ovens) generally do not expose people to high enough levels of RF energy to cause thermal, or ionizing, effects. Current safety standards, which are founded on possible risk of thermal effects, do not account for possible “non-thermal effects”associated with exposure to low-frequency RF energy, then.

A small, but significant, portion of the general population has reported suffering from “electromagnetic hypersensitivity,” or EHS, a condition characterized by non-specific symptoms (i.e., they are not associated with any other syndrome) which the afflicted person attributes to sources of electromagnetic fields (EMF) such as cell phones. Some of the more common symptoms include heart palpitations, digestive problems, difficulty concentrating, tiredness, fatigue, insomnia, dizziness, and nausea, as well as skin redness, tingling, and burning sensations of the skin. While EHS is not a medical diagnosis, the World Health Organization has recognized it as a potentially disabling condition with real symptoms which can “vary widely in their severity.” Authorities recognize that EHS affects quality of life, even if, at this point, it is not considered part of the development of any degenerative diseases.

In light of the prevalence of EHS symptoms, scientists have theorized that exposure to RF energy at currently permitted standards induces a stress response in cells. Hypothetically, this stress response could cause adverse biological changes such as compromised function of the blood-brain barrier, DNA damage and suppression of the immune system. To conclusively make such determinations, though, for the purpose of reevaluating SAR value standards, more in vitro and experimental (as opposed to epidemiological) research is needed.

The FCC acknowledges, “in general, while the possibility of 'non-thermal' biological effects may exist, whether or not such effects might indicate a human health hazard is not presently known. Further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health.^"5

3. The Standards Do Not Account for Proximity to Source of RF energy.

Regardless of the SAR value of our phones, we face greater exposure to RF radiation when we call people while our cell phone signals are low. When we make calls, signals are sent from our cell phone antennas to the nearest base station antennas. Therefore, RF exposure generally increases the further away we are from base station antennas because more power is required maintain the connections. If we are using cell phones while in rural areas or within the confines of our cars, for example, we will be exposed to more RF energy than if in a city full of cell phone towers and antennas. Because RF emissions vary with the location of the base station, then, SAR value of individual phones may not be a reliable predictor of harm or safety.

4. The Standards May Reflect Industry Bias

There is speculation that the current SAR standard demonstrates bias toward the cell phone industry due to source of funding. In 1999, the FCC acknowledged that “much of the non-military research on biological effects of RF energy in the U.S. is being funded by industry organizations such as Motorola, Inc.”⁶ Since the agencies and organizations the FCC consulted when determining its safety standards derived their opinions and recommendations from scientific literature which had been predominantly industry funded, it follows that current safety standards may reflect favor toward the cell phone industry.

Reducing Unnecessary Risk of RF Exposure

Current regulatory standards for cell phones, set forth in 1996, need to be revised to reflect changes in cell phone technology and usage patterns, possible non-thermal health effects, and other factors affecting reliability of SAR value as a measure of cell phone “safety.” Understandably, the FCC won’t change the SAR value standard for manufacturers until scientists and other experts agree on the actual health risks of cell phone use. Hence, until science gets the facts straight and the government gets up to speed with regulation, we need to take matters into our own hands…we need to act with precaution until we know what the actual risks are.

In response to concerns about cell phone health risks, the FCC has started suggesting precautionary measures to limit cell phone radiation exposure, including:

· Using a headset (HMDI recommends a wired one with an air tube);

· Keeping wireless devices away from the body when they are on;

· Using the speakerphone function;

· Texting rather than talking (but not while driving); and

· Buying a cell phone with a lower SAR value.⁷

HMDI also suggests turning off the phone when not using it for calls or text, using a landline whenever possible and limiting children’s use to emergencies.

_________________________________________________________________

1. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the FCC is required to evaluate how emissions from FCC regulated transmitters affect the quality of the human environment.

2. International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry web site. “U.S. Wireless Quick Facts,” accessed Sept. 27, 2010.
3. International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry web site. “Growing Wireless Minutes of Use 1991 – 2008, accessed Sept. 27, 2010.
4. Kaiser Family Foundation Web Site, “Daily Media Use Among Children and Teens Up Dramatically from Five Years Ago,” accessed Sept. 27, 2010.
5. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology. “Questions and Answers About Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” OET Bulletin 56; Fourth Edition: August 1999, available at www.fcc.gov.
6. Id.
7. FCC Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. “Wireless Devices and Health Concerns: FCC Consumer Facts," accessed Sept. 27, 2010.

Additional References and Resources:

• Crofton, K. Wireless Radiation Rescue: Safeguard Your Family from Electro-pollution (Global Well Being Books, 2011).

• Gittleman AL. Zapped: Why Your Cell Phone Shouldn't Be Your Alarm Clock and 1,268 Ways to Outsmart the Hazards of Electronic Pollution (Harper Collins, 2010).
  

• The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology. “Frequently asked questions about the safety of radiofrequency (RF) and microwave emissions from transmitters and facilities regulated by the FCC,” accessed Sept. 27, 2010.

• U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations web site. “Testimony From Hearing on Health Effects of Cell Phone Use,” Sept. 15, 2009.

• “Health and Safety Information,” Samsung SGH-a877 Series Health and Safety Warranty Guide.

• The World Health Organization web site “Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity,” accessed Sept. 27, 2010.

• The Bioinitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF), August 31, 2007, available at http://www.bioinitiative.org/.

• Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. “The Stewart Report: Mobile Phones and Health," May 11, 2000.
  

© 2010 Heart MD Institute, PA

Continue lendo