7 Responses to Melbourne to Host International Speaker on Harmful Health Effects and Wireless Technology

1. mimb says:

   November 21, 2016 at 1:27 am

   Hi – here are the notes I made from today. I have no copy of his slides & wait for those either to get published on his site or here [?]
   How Probable are Health Effects of Radiation from Wireless Transmitting Devices? By Dariusz Leszczynski PhD, DSci https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/
   His CV & the overhead slides from his presentation are on his blog. These are my notes and include some of my own interpretive comments [highlighted in an alternate colour].
   Overview: Non-thermal radiation health effects exist but vested interests refuse to acknowledge them nor research them in depth or properly. They stand behind the excuse of safety standards, which are actually irrelevant. Epidemiology & EEG studies indicate compelling evidence Non-thermal radiation is a low level exposure THEREFORE – wearable & carryable items of significant concern. Any item currently emitting below current “safety standards” is automatically permitted. No certainty that the current safety standards protect all users from anything other than thermal radiation impacts. No information on cell phone radiation effects on biochemistry of humans. [This reminds me of the issues surrounding MCS such as “toxic load” and the need to overhaul the science of toxicology to better reflect that there is a small but significant population group that is adversely affected for unknown/poorly understood reasons. Proper research is required.]
   THE PROBLEM: Slide – bucket of water + salt + sugar is what is inside brain cells. Brain cell membranes are hydrophobic whereas the contents of the cells are hydrophilic. [Interestingly, he did not mention the high fat content in brain tissue.
   I also wonder if he has consulted with or corresponded with Professor Pall. I wanted to ask but he had to leave so I will send him a message.] THE RESEARCH QTN he wants to see addressed:
   How do brain cell molecules respond to non-thermal radiation? All the human studies so far have been psychological self assessment based and therefore are meaningless [& poorly designed]. WHO’s IARC – in 2011 DL was part of the group that decided that WiFi be labelled a Class 2B carcinogen. There were only a couple of studies to rely on with hard data. DL listed a fw studies & there conclusion – most either could show no effects or slight impacts but their data was unreliable [& study designs were wanting]. One study had the misleading claim that 29 years of data showed a 10 year latency for glioma.
   CONCLUSION wrt RISK FROM WiFi:
   more than 10years of [cell phone use] with that use being more than 30 minutes/day places one at increased risk of glioma.
   INTERPHONE STUDIES: 3 studies, single set of data all pretty much useless 2011- partial data – no effects [Javaara et al] 2011 – partial data – weak effects [Cardis et al] 2016 – yes – association [Gell et al]
   EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CANCER RISK: Basically – long term, avid use – increased risk of brain cancer [glioma] BUT all these studies have unreliable exposure data. Poor groupings of people/users in data sets which causes dilution of results.
   ** we CAN collect real exposure data easily by installing apps on smart phones. **
   Example of measuring exposure: CellRaid’s Quanta Monitor on RF exposure: It might overestimate body exposure It might overestimate SAR
   HUMAN STUDIES Most are “feeling” studies. They are very subjective & by psychologists. BUT EHS NEEDS TO BE studied BY PHYSIOLOGISTS.
   Most people do not know how to recognise EMR/EHS impacts/effects. There is a complete lack of biochemical studies. One study looked at proteins in skin. Two studies looked at metabolism of glucose in the brain, where one showed an increase & the other showed a decrease. The reality is that glucose metabolism is constantly changing. So these studies have been poorly setup.
   DNA DAMAGE Genotoxicity Mutagenicity DNA damage is a constantly occurrence that our body deals with naturally via self correction mechanisms. Generally, our bodies are good at self repair. Slowing down of repair might be happening BUT the cause is not understood & the original source of change to DNA unknown. [Some cellular, test tube, studies have been done but these are not transferable to humans.] Both cellular & rat studies are unreliable. HUMAN studies are needed.
   ALZHEIMER’S Links with cell phone radiation Are older people more at risk? Studies show mixed results. [He had a good slide & it will be on his blog site in due course.] Studies show 2 main [contradictory] outcomes: ^ increase in development USA study decrease in development and or in amyloids
   Kumer et al [2016] – viral & bacterial link w/ Alzheimer’s amyloid production → traps for pathogens SO IS ALZHEIMER’S an off-shoot of immune disease?
   BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER [BBB] BB protects the brain some studies show WiFi weakens the BBB → increased beta amyloids [Genetic and or Epigenetic and or Environmental issues compounding the issue/s]
   WiFi & SMART METERS & OTHER [low emitting] WiFi DEVICES ** We know enough to invoke the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE! ** Scientific Info is: WHO IARC Classification of WiFi as a Class 2B carcinogen Precaution DOES NOT equal Prevention Strong opposition from Telcos [& other utilities]
   CONCLUSIONS – HOW PROBABLE ARE THE IMPACTS? 2011 – possible 2016 – probable Cancer [glioma] will remain “rare” WiFi may be a co-carcinogen
   this may be its only impact -i.e. with co-factors it is slowly increasing, latency Other disease – too early to tell – understand – to little evidencce to know or make conclusions We should focus on better studies and develop an undertsanding of markers fro groups who are and are not sensitive. We may never find out the scientific answers Currently there is a lack of affordable dosimeter technology for the average [non scientific] user to implement their own personal analysis of their daily exposure/s.
   IMPACTS OF PP New studies → jobs; R & D; innovations wrt safety; ^^ efficiency Suggested WiFi zones like Smoking zones in places like airports & other public places etc PROOF of safety required
   Users/consumers should be informed [at purchase] that current safety standards are unsupported by any science & should be informed of the uncertainty & how to reduce exposures. If they have a smart phone – they should know that WiFi operates both when utilsing device as a phone & as a modem/on the internet.
   ALARA principle
   “ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) is a safety principle designed to minimize radiation doses and releases of radioactive materials. More than merely best practice, ALARA is predicated on legal dose limits for regulatory compliance, and is a requirement for all radiation safety programs.”
   Activity of WHO EMF Project & membership of ICNIRP & SCHENIHR should be overhauled & clear & accountability values set.

   Reply
   • Anonymous says:

     November 21, 2016 at 7:40 pm

     I also heard that they don’t have any smart meter health tests at all.

     Reply
2. Anonymous says:

   November 20, 2016 at 9:09 pm

   Thank you to SSMA and Professor Dariusz and Steve Weller for taking the time today to explain about health effects and wireless technology. Its a lot easier to understand things when an expert explains it in detail. These people that arranged the meeting and the speakers provided a valuable service to the community I walked away with a clearer understanding of health effects and wireless technology.

   Reply

3. Pingback: Melbourne to Host International Speaker on Harmful Health Effects and Wireless Technology | conspiracyoz

4. dana says:

   November 16, 2016 at 6:20 pm

   I hope a lot of Australian doctors will go to this talk. It’s an embarrassment to medicine how little most doctors know about the research on health effects related to RF/microwaves. They need to get up to speed. How can they give patients advice when they are not informed?

   Reply
5. mosh says:

   November 8, 2016 at 4:33 pm

   let me know if you wish to video the event! mohsen.

   Reply
6. Terry EALING says:

   November 5, 2016 at 11:34 am

   Can you put his findings and presentation on this site for us to hear his views. It would be appreciated by us here in W.A. Cheers

   Reply

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (Address never made public)

Name

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ