HomeMy WebLinkAboutT-MOBILE (CEDARWOOD PLAZA) WTF - PDP - 38-06A - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (3)Breast Cancer (GetWell International, 2003). She has contributed
numerous articles to NEXUS, most recently 'Drugs and Chemicals
Straight from the Tap" in 12/03.
Sherrill Sellman can be contacted by telephone on +1 (918)
437 1058, by email at golight®earthlink.net or via her website
httpJ/www.whatwomenmustknow.com.
Postscript: My Personal Choice for Protection against
Electropollution
amour years ago, when I began investigating the effects of
JL electropollution, I realised that it was becoming more and more
difficult to avoid its pervasive health consequences. With the
unparalleled explosion of EMR, it is now virtually impossible to
escape the reach of the wireless world -whether you use a
cellphone/mobile phone or not.
In light of this reality, I investigated the most scientifically
supported forms of protection available. Few products actually
demonstrated results. However, one company, BIOPRO
Technology, has provided the science that proves the efficacy of
their novel technologies (http://www.biOprotechnology.com).
1. Dibira I, Kmstupaitis D, Kurosaki T,
Tuel-Ahlgren L, Chu A, Pond D. nong D,
Luben R. Uckun FM, "Stimulation of Sic
Family Protein -tyrosine Kinases as a Proximal
and Mandatory Step for SYK Kmase
dependent Phospholipase Cy2 Activation in
Lymphoma B Cells Exposed to Low Energy
Electromagnetic Fields", J Biol Chem 1998
Feb 13; 273(7):41)35-39
2. Kristupams D, Dibirdik 1, Vassilev A,
Mahajan S, Kurosa ki T, Chu A, Tucl-Ahlgren
L. Tuong D, Pond D, Labe R, Uckun FM,
"Electromagnetic Field -induced Stimulation of
Burton's Tyrosine Kinase", J Biol Chem 1998
May 15; 273(20):12397-401
3. Shaw GM, Croen LA, "Human adverse
reproductive outcomes and electromagnetic
field exposures: review of epidemiologic
studies", Environmental Health Perspectives
1993 Dec:101(suppl 4):107-19
4. Blaasaas KG, Tynes T, Lie RT, "Residence
near power lines and risk of birth defects",
Epidemiology 2003; 14:95.98
S. Ahlbom A, Cardis E, Green A, L net M,
Savitz D, Swerdlow A (ICNIRP [International
Commission. for Non -Ionizing Radiation
Protection] Standing Committee on
Epidemiology, "Review of the Epidemiologic
Literature on EMR and Health", Environ
Health Perspectives 2001 Dec; 109(Suppl 6):
911-933
6. Lyskov E, Juutilainen 1, Jousmiki V,
Hanninen O, Medvedev S, Part men J,
"Influence of short-term exposure of magnetic
field on the bioelectrical processes of the brain
and performance", Int J Psychophysiol 1993;
14:227-231.
7. Kavet R, "Contact current hypothesis:
Summary of results to date".
Bioelectromagnerics 2005: 26(Suppl 7):
S75-85.
& Graham C, Cook MR, Gerkovich MM,
Sastre A, "Examination of the melatonin
They have licensed two technologies that are [Harried in their phone
chips and "Universal" chips for appliances, e.g., computers,
wireless routers, etc.
The first technology is a patented passive noisefield technology,
called Molecular Resonant Effect Technology (MRET), which
successfully addresses primary intervention, immediately stopping
damage to cell membranes.
The other is a subtle energy technology, Energy Resonance
Technology (ERT), which improves cell -to -cell communication,
i.e., a secondary intervention.
While in the past I have always chosen to remain impartial with
product recommendations, in this case the problem of
electropollution is so serious that I felt it was imperative to
recommend a proven technology. Visit the website
htip://www.bioenergcticsinstitute.com for the studies.
I not only recommend these products, but also make them
available for purchase. If you would like more information, please
visit the website http://www.mybiopro.conVyes or email me at
golight@ eanhlink.net. In Australia, you can call (03) 9808 1822.
-Sherrill Sel Iman
hypothesis in women exposed at night to EMR
or bright light", Environ Health Perspeet 2001
May; 109(5):501-507.
9. Havaas M, Stetzer D. "Electromagnetic
hypersensitivity: biological effects of dirty
electricity with emphasis on diabetes and
multiple sclerosis", Electromag Biol Med
2006; 25(4):259-68
10. Salford LG, Brun AE, Eberhardt JL,
Malmgren L, and Persson BRR, "Nerve cell
damage. in mammalian brain after exposure to
microwaves from GSM mobile phones",
Environ Health Perspeet 2003 Jun;
111(7):881-883
11. Savitz DA, Checkoway H, Loomis DP,
"Magnetic field exposure and
neurodegenerative disease mortality among
electric utility workers", Epidemiology 1998;
9:398404.
17. Becker, Robert 0, MD, Cross Currents:
The Promise of Electromedicine, the Perils of
Eleetropollution, Jeremy P. Tamher, New
York. December 1989, 1 st ed.
13. Interview with Dr Robert 0. Becker by
Linda Moulton Howe, London, 14 May 2000,
at httpJ/www.energyfields.orgisciencel
becker.hurd
14. Sienlaewicz 7J, Saunders RD, Kowalczuk
C1(1991), "Biological Effects: of Exposure to
Non -ionizing Electromagnetic Fields and
Radiation. I1. Extremely Low Frequency
Electrical and Magnetic Fields", NRPB Report
R239, National Radiological Protection Board
Chilton, UK
15. Saunders RD, Kowalezuk Cl, Sienkiewicz
ZJ (1991), "Biological Effects of Exposure to
Non -ionizing Electromagnetic Fields and
Radiation. M. Radiofrequency and
Microwave Radiation", NRPB Report R240,
National Radiological Protection Board,
Chilton. UK
16. Becker RO, Marino AA, "Effects of
Electromagnetic Energy on the Nervous
System", summary of Chapter 5 in
Electromagnetism & I.tfe, State University of
New York Press, Albany, 1982, at
http://www.ortho.Isuhsc.edu/Faculty/Marino/
F.i ML5/Summ uy5.hmd
17, Paneth N, "Neumbehaviond effects of
power -frequency electromagnetic fields",
Environ Health Perspectives 1993 Dec;
]01(S4):101-ID6
18. Srinivasan V, Spence DW et al.,
"Melatonin, environmental hght, and breast
cancer', Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007 May
31; PMID:17541739
19. Robien K. Cutler G, Lazovich D,
"Vitamin D intake and breast cancer risk in
postmenopausal women: the Iowa Women's
Health Study", Cancer Causes Control 2007
Sep;18(7):775-82, epub 2007 Jun 5, PMID:
17549593
20. Masami 1, Nitta H, Kabum M. "Magnetic
fields (ME) of 50 Hz at 1.2 µT as well as 100
pT cause uncoupling of inhibitory pathways of
adenylyl cyclase mediated by melatonin 1 a
receptor in MF-sensitive MCF-7 cells",
Carcinogenesis 2001 Jul; 22(7):1043-48
21. "When Enough is Never Enough: A
Reproducible EMF Effect at 12 mG",
Microwave News, November 23, 2005,
http://www.microwavenews.com/nc_
nov20051tml
22. Coogan PF, Clapp, RW, Newcomb PA,
Wenzl TB, Greg Bogdan G, Minndorf R,
Baron JA, Longnecker MP, "Occupational
Exposure to 60-Hertz Magnetic Fields and
Risk of Breast Cancer in Women",
Epidemiology 1996 Sep; 7(5):459-64
23. Demers PA, Thomas DB, Rosenblatt KA
et al., "Occupational Exposure to
Electromagnetic Fields and Breast Cancer in
Men", Am J Epidemiology 1991;
134(4):340-47
24. Graham C, op. cit.
25. Charles LE, Loomis D et al.,
"Electromagnetic fields, polychlorinated
40•NEXUS www. nexusmagazine.com SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER2007
scientists found otherwise. Upon presentation to the CTIA of his
findings, he was summarily fired and the damning results were
shelved. Dr Carlo has gone on to become one of the most
reputable and vocal critics of the wireless technology industry and
one of the world's leading experts on electropollution. According
to Dr Carlo: "We understand that these information -carrying
radio waves trigger protein membrane responses at the cell
membrane level, leading to disruption of intercellular
communication and build-up of free radicals inside the cell. This
mechanism understanding is very important because it now
explains the wide diversity of symptoms that we are seeing in
patients who are repotting electrohypersensitivity and also other
conditions such as headaches and unexplained anxiety that
henceforth... we'll know will be associated with these information -
carrying radio waves. ""
Imagine what happens to the functioning of
a cell if it can't receive vital nutrients,
eliminate waste products or communicate
properly with other cells: complete havoc on
a cellular level!
Since we are surrounded by cellphone
towers and users, it has become virtually
impossible to escape continuous and
unrelenting exposure to ICRWs and ongoing
harm to our physiological processes.
Increasing Risks from Wireless
Technology
The Mobile Telephone Health
Concerns Registry is a non-profit
organisation created to gather
information about health effects from
cellphones." Previously, complaints
were about health problems caused by
cellphones. In the past two years,
however, most complaints have to do
with ambient (background) information-
canying radio waves coming from a vast
variety of wireless sources. The strength
of these ambient ICRWs is approaching
the intensity of the radio frequencies
emitted by cellphones.
What does this mean? It means that
whether or not you choose to have a cellphonelmobile phone, the
proliferation of wireless technology is exposing you and your
children to dangerous radiation that instantaneously damages your
cells and alters all physiological processes. There is nowhere to
bide any more.
Dr Carlo has profound insight into the unprecedented public
health disaster brewing from an increasingly wireless world.
"Scientific studies continue to accumulate showing that
information -carrying radio waves from mobile phones and other
wireless devices, now used by more than three billion people
worldwide, are dangerous. The mobile phone industry has not
addressed the problem; governments around the world continue to
be burdened by entanglements with the industry that render them
unable to protect consumers. Emerging science shows links to
conditions ranging from learning and spectrum disorders to
cancer. If unabated, the brunt of the disease burden will continue
to be home by our children and grandchildren.'"
The bad news is that we face an unprecedented public health
disaster. The good news is that there are some effective,
scientifically validated, preventive interventions now available.
... whether or not
you choose to have
a cellphone,
the proliferation of
wireless technology
is exposing you and
your children to
dangerous radiation
that instantaneously
damages your cells
and alters all
physiological
processes.
Three Pieces of the Intervention Puzzle
Resolving the electropollution problem necessitates addressing
three distinct interventions: primary, secondary and tertiary. Dr
Carlo is adamant that all three levels of intervention are required
to ensure adequate protection against electropollution. He refers
to this as the Public Health Paradigm.
Primary intervention technologies are those that act to prevent
the cell membrane's protective response from being
inappropriately triggered. These act on the "cause" of the
problems and include appropriate headsets, active noise -field
technologies (developed by the US military) and passive noise -
field technologies.
Secondary intervention technologies are those that act to restore
intercellular communication and thus can ameliorate the "effects"
of EMR exposure. These are most effective in conjunction with
primary interventions, and include subtle
energy technologies, diodes and some
pendants.
Tertiary intervention technologies are those
that act to rehabilitate and correct cell
damage. These work only in conjunction
with primary and secondary intervention
technologies, and include nutritionals,
antioxidants and repair supplements.
To ensure the greatest protection, all three
"layers" must be initiated simultaneously: to
protect the cells from direct harm, to re-
establish healthy cell -to -cell communication
and to provide the body with the
essential nourishment so it can repair
itself and stay healthy.
On the subject of these three levels of
intervention, Dr. Carlo says: "The
combined effect of electropollution
coveting all three effect windows is the
most serious health risk we have ever
faced because it is an overlay health risk
that is now working insidiously in our
lives. These exposures compromise
fundamental biological processes
including immune response and other
physiological compensation systems.
Thus, electropollution makes the
population more susceptible and vulnerable to other
environmental insults such as air and water pollution, poor
nutrition, exposures to viruses and bacteria, as well as physical
stressors such as extreme heat or cold and stressful life events.""
As we rush headlong into our exciting high-tech world, we
must also understand that we are all participating in a massive
experiment. Electropollution is a very real threat to present and
future generations. Effective interventions are not a luxury but
simply a necessity. Like it or not, the ever-expanding and
intrusive electromagnetic world is here to stay. The responsibility
lies with each one of us to take the proactive steps that will
protect us, our family and future generations.
About the Author:
Sherrill Sellman, ND, is a naturopathic doctor, psychotherapist,
international lecturer, radio host, writer and Certified
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety Advisor (CERSA). She is the
author of the best-selling books Hormone Heresy. What Women
MUST Know About Their Hormones (GetWell International, 1996,
2001 4th ed.) and Mothers, Prevent Your Daughters From Getting
SEPTEMBER — OCTOBER 2007
www.nexusmagazi ne.com
NEXUS • 39
Cellphones and Near Field Radiation
We now know that a very dangerous and specific form of EMR
affecting the functioning of the brain and body is the information -
carrying signal that is emitted from the cellphone's antenna,
known as a "near -field plume". (Note that in newer cellphones,
the antenna may be hidden and not be visible to the user;
nonetheless, the near -field radiation is still a health issue.) The
near -field radiation emanates outwards about 67 inches [approx.
15-18 centimetres] from the antenna in all directions. It is the
result of a burst of power required to carry a radio signal to a base
station that may be many kilometres away. Whenever we activate
the phone to send or receive, whether it is held against the head,
clipped to a belt or kept in a pocket, we are being exposed to
dangerous information -carrying waves in the near field radiation
plume.
The latest research shows that background radiation from the
many EMR-emitting electrical appliances as well as the new
wireless hot -spots equals the density of the information -carrying
waves emitted from the near field. This means that there is
danger not only close to the cellphone antenna, but also now in
the general environment to which we are exposed every day."
Although the wireless technology
industry and some governmental
agencies continue to assure the public
of the safety of cellphones (in a way
that is very reminiscent of the tobacco
industry), the truth is that recent
scientific evidence has revealed an
emerging pattern of severe health
problems caused from exposure to
near -field radiation. Cellphones are
anything but safe and harmless. Some
of the specific biological problems
include disruption to the blood -brain
barrier, genetic damage, breakdown in
cell -to -cell communication and
increase in the risk of cancers The
blood -brain barrier is a special filter in the blood vessels of the
brain that keeps dangerous chemicals from reaching sensitive
brain tissue and causing DNA to break. Near -field radiation is
able to open up the blood -brain barrier, allowing damaging toxic
chemicals a free ride into the brain tissue.
Near -field radiation also contributes to DNA damage. Many
studies have found micronuclei (fragments of DNA with a
surrounding membrane and with no physiological purpose) in the
blood of people who use cellphones. Micronuclei result from a
breakdown of the cell's ability to repair itself, and they indicate
genetic damage. If the brain cells become unable to repair
themselves, then tumours could develop." More troubling is the
fact that the presence of micronuclei can also indicate other health
issues, e.g., compromised immunity, sleep disturbances, attention
deficient disorders, autism and Alzheimer's disease. Since the
body's master glands (pituitary, hypothalamus, pineal) are located
within the brain, massive disturbances to the hormonal signalling
capacities may potentially be generated from continual cellphone
use.
Then there's the electrical circuitry from cellphones, which
generates a competing energy that interferes with one's own
biofield, or energy field. This kind of pervasive, or ambient,
EMR compromises many physiological processes. When a
cellphone is clipped onto the belt or kept in a pant, pocket, this
ambient field most powerfully affects the tissues and organs that it
is closest to, particularly in the pelvic area. Two studies have
already shown a 30 per cent reduction in sperm count in male
mobile phone users. As more women clip their cellphone to their
belt, female reproductive organs may also be at risk."
A word of caution also needs to be mentioned about the dangers
caused by ambient radiation from headsets. It is now
acknowledged that headsets, far from being protective, can actually
increase radiation emissions into the brain by as much as 300 per
cent. Bluetooth technology is especially dangerous. The only safe
headset to use is a hollow air -tube headset.
Cellphones, Cell Membranes and Carrier Waves
In recent years, exposure to radio frequencies emitted from
cellphones and wireless communication devices has taken centre
stage, implicated as causing serious physiological damage to cells.
Initially the wireless technology industry and the US
government did not consider radio frequencies from cellphones to
be a health risk. Despite massive evidence to the contrary, the
industry still maintains that position. In the early days of this
technology, it was believed that only a thermal effect, the heating
of tissues (such as what occurs in a microwave oven), resulted in
damage to tissues. Since cellphones do not have enough power to
heat tissue the US overn nt did not
now acknowledged
adsets, far from being
ective, can actually
ie radiation emissions
he brain by as much
is 300 per cent.
8
require any studies to be done to
investigate the potential health
problems.
However, emerging science has
discovered that the problem with
cellphones does not come from power
output (thermal effect) but rather from
the information piggybacking on the
so-called "carrier wave" emitted from
and received by the cellphone's
antenna. This is called an
"information -carrying radio wave"
(ICRW). It is a frequency that
conveys specific packets of
information, allowing the transmission
of various features of cellphones, e.g., voice, text, graphics, etc."
Herein lies the problem: this ICRW has a frequency that has
never before existed in nature; our cells are totally unfamiliar with
it and perceive it as a dangerous foreign invader.
The latest research has clearly identified the biological
mechan;sms of harm caused by ICRWs. We have special receptor
sites, called "micrombules", on our cell membranes which can
sense frequencies. The receptor sites interpret the ICRW as an
unknown, threatening energy. Instantaneously the cell membrane
will go into a protective lock -down mode. This means that
nutrients cannot get into the cell and toxins and waste products
cannot get out. It also means that vital cell -to -cell communication
is lost." This effect is immediate and lasts for as long as a person
is exposed to the ICRWs. The longer this condition persists,
biological damage occurs —often resulting in free radical damage,
genetic mutation, loss of cellular energy, premature ageing and,
ultimately, degenerative disease.
If anyone should know about the harmful effects of cellphones
and wireless technology, it is George Carlo, MD, PhD, author of
Cell Phones: invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age. A respected
medical professor of epidemiology, Dr Carlo was hired by the
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) as the
chief research scientist to lead a 28-million-dollar, five-year
research program investigating the potential harmful effects of
cellphones. The CTIA was confident that no health effects would
be found. However, Dr Carlo and his team of 200 research
38 • NEXUS www.nexusmagazihe.com SEPTEMBER—OCTOBER2007
i
.�0�, aaa 7
No Text
No Text
No Text