was successfully added to your cart.

Wireless Cellphone EMF Newsletter June 20 2015 – Felicia Trujillo

In this issue of Felicia Trujillo’s Newletter… scroll down for articles.

contact Ray at KTII (at) nym.hush.com if you would like to reach Felicia to be on her email list.

  • Brain cancers like Beau Biden’s kill about 15,000 adults each year
  • Canadian Medical Association Journal reports Health Canada’s wireless limits are “A Disaster to Public Health
  • Australian Researcher: Phone Radiation is a Hotline to Brain Cancer Actual mention of term electro hyper sensitivity. Actual mention of symptoms.
  • 100 More Smart Meters Explode–in Capitola, CA
  • This Time Scientists Seek to Rein In Diagnoses of Cancer
  • Is Wi-Fi making your child ill?
  • International Scientists Appeal to U.N. To Protect Humans and Wildlife from Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Technology
  • Berkeley Cell Phone “Right to Know” Ordinance Adopted on 9-0 Vote
  • This Evening Scores of Scientists Raise Alarm About the Long-Term Health Effects of Cellphones
  • Wearable Device Changes Your Mood
  • Los Alamos: A Whistleblower’s Diary
  • Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering
  • The Brain Tumor That Killed the Vice President’s Son Has Been Linked to Cell Phone Radiation
  • Brain implant could restore MEMORIES in wounded soldiers and Alzheimer’s sufferers – but is it ethical?
  • Chemtrails, Nanoaluminum, and Neurodegenerative and Neurodevelopmental Effects.

Hullo folks,

These ezenes may be less regular for awhile—am working on releasing three books, plus my practice and am living in Overwhelm, NM. Thank you for hanging in with these ezenes and hanging on to reading what is often troubling information—that we all need to know.

Yes, I am beginning this post asking you to take a few moments to click here:

Please click your vote of support to save the Eyak Tribe from Navy plans to drop 350,000 lbs of bombs sink two ships, and run antisubmarine war games that use sonar which will kill whales and fish in most biologically rich part of the Gulf of Alaska.




The Eyak Tribe in Alaska is speaking out against the Navy’s plans to bomb the Gulf of Alaska starting in June, and the Navy is beginning to respond to them. Tribal voices have been silenced elsewhere, and I want to ensure it doesn’t happen here, too. They plan to chase out commercial fishermen, too. It’s a disaster in the making.
Greetings from AK…..the Navy is now responding to a letter writing campaign up here that is opposing their plans to bomb and war-game in the Gulf of Alaska…so the folks running the letter writing campaign are requesting help in getting more folks to write the Navy. It takes two seconds to do online-just click and it will send a letter now, and send this to others for them to do the same:


Dahr Jamail, a Truthout staff reporter, is the author of The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, (Haymarket Books, 2009), and Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq, (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from Iraq for more than a year, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last ten years, and has won the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative Journalism, among other awards. His fourth book, The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible, co-written with William Rivers Pitt, is available now on Amazon. He lives and works in Washington State.

As always, use the attached pdf for better copy. Oh, some folks are reporting that their emails to me are being blocked. Hope you get this! felicidades (wishing you well), Felicia





Please comment on this planned disaster by July 17, 2015:

https://www.federalregister.gov/…/takes-of-marine-mammals-i… activities?utm_campaign=subscription+mailing+list&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov

You can submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0031, by:

  • Electronically: Go towww.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0031, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments
  • Mail: Submit written comments to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225.
  • Fax: (301) 713-0376; Attn: Jolie Harrison.

Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS.




Food Banksy
Food Banksy makes activist parody songs to infuse the global food crisis with true and hilarious tools for change… This song is about the geoengineers who poison our food, water, air, and earth… The dead approve, but need your help to ban GMO’s!


Brain cancers like Beau Biden’s kill about 15,000 adults each year

To Your Health


By Lenny Bernstein May 31

Vice president’s son Beau Biden dies at 46(0:55)

Vice President Joe Biden announced Saturday that his son has died of brain cancer after battling the disease for several years. (AP)


CHICAGO — A variety of malignant brain and central nervous system tumors kill about 15,000 people in the United States each year, often after difficult courses of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, according to experts and data from various cancer organizations.

Officials have not disclosed the type of brain cancer that killed Vice President Biden’s son Joseph Robinette “Beau” Biden III at age 46 on Saturday night. But assuming he suffered from a primary cancer — not one that spread from another part of the body — the most likely is a glioblastoma, an aggressive cancer of the brain’s supportive tissue, two experts said.

Patients with Grade 4 glioblastomas — the most aggressive type  survive a median of 14.6 months after diagnosis, said Brian Alexander, a radiation oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. But adults can suffer from Grade 2, 3 or 4 malignancies, living for 10 years or more if they have the mildest type, and younger adults like Biden tend to live longer than older ones, Alexander said.

Former Massachusetts senator Edward M. Kennedy died in August 2009, 15 months after he suffered a seizure and was diagnosed with a malignant glioma, the most common form of brain cancer. A glioblastoma is a sub-type of glioma.

[Joe Biden talks about his son in personal speech at Yale graduation]

Brain cancers also “can morph from a lower-grade version to a higher-grade version over time,” said Deepa Subramaniam, director of the brain tumor center at Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Beau Biden was first diagnosed in August 2013 and after surgery, radiation and chemotherapy returned to normal duties in November that year. But his cancer recurred this spring, and he began treatment again at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

In 1988, Vice President Biden, then a senator from Delaware, underwent two brain surgeries himself for a cranial aneurysm, an enlargement or bulge in a blood vessel caused by a weakness in its wall.

Nearly 23,000 adults, more of them men than women, will be diagnosed with primary brain cancers this year, according to Cancer.net, a web site of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, whose members are gathered here for their annual conference.

Brain tumors are a particularly common form of cancer in children. About 4,300 children and teens will be diagnosed with malignant tumors this year, more than half of them younger than 15.

[Photos: The life of Beau Biden]

Unlike most other cancers, brain tumors generally do not spread to other parts of the body. They kill by interfering with normal body function, depending on their location in the brain. Malignancies can develop in most areas of the brain, Alexander said.

Treatment generally involves surgery first, if possible, to remove as much of the tumor as possible, Alexander and Subramanian said. Surgeons sometimes will leave portions of the tumor in the brain to preserve body function, Alexander said.

Surgery is followed by radiation and chemotherapy, often with the drug temozolomide, which patients tend to tolerate well, Subramanian said.

“For most incurable brain tumors, the primary challenge is managing the portions of the tumor that are undetectable by diagnostic imaging,” said Nader Sanai, a brain tumor surgeon and brain cancer researcher at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix. “These tumor cells are often the source of recurrence, traveling undetected to other brain regions of the patient and then driving the formation of new areas of growth with little warning.” Most malignant brain tumors eventually recur, Sanai said.

Oncologists are learning more about the genetics of brain tumors, but that hasn’t yet yielded any transformative therapies, Alexander said. Still, “the more we learn about the biology of [such cancers], the better we get at being able to tell how well a person might do,” Subramaniam said.

With brain tumors, a variety of complications can appear, said Eric T. Wong, a neuro-oncologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. The patient can develop seizures. Radiation can also induce cognitive changes, such as short-term memory problems, or problems processing information in a timely fashion. Patients can also develop infections, clots in their legs and lungs, and sleep problems.

“There’s a litany of complications associated with having the tumor as well as secondary ones related to the treatment,” he said. “And there’s less government-funded research dollars going into brain cancer research and cancer research in general.”


Brady Dennis and Lena H. Sun contributed to this report.

Canadian Medical Association Journal reports Health Canada’s wireless limits are “A Disaster to Public Health”

OTTAWA, May 7, 2015 /CNW/ – The Canadian Medical Association Journal today published a scathing condemnation of Health Canada’s safety guidelines for cell phones and Wifi.

The Journal (CMAJ) interviewed multiple international experts in radiation and cancer, who warn that the microwave levels allowed in Canadian classrooms, residences and workplaces are, “a disaster to public health.”

One scientist said that given the overwhelming evidence that wireless radiation is harmful, Health Canada staff are either, “unwilling or not competent to make evaluation of the current literature.”

The article points out that Canada’s Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health recently completed three days of hearings on Canada’s safety guidelines, and sent federal scientists back to the office to re-examine 140 recent studies that show wireless radiation emitted by cell phones and WiFi can cause harm.

One oncologist interviewed by the CMAJ said that Canada’s safety guidelines for wireless radiation need to be “urgently revised” due to the obvious risk of cancer.

The CMAJ article revealed that James McNamee, who wrote Health Canada’s safety code, has also co-authored academic papers with scientists who openly accept payments from the wireless industry.

“That Canada’s wireless safety code is out of date and mired in conflict of interest is no longer a question it’s a fact,” said Frank Clegg, CEO of Canadians For Safe Technology (C4ST).

“We’re hoping the Parliamentary Standing Committee will have strong recommendations to fix it,” said Clegg.

SOURCE C4ST: Canadians For Safe Technology

For further information:

Interviews Frank Clegg, Contact: media@C4ST.org, Phone: 705-444-9662, Background: www.c4st.org/HESA2015

“Scientists Decry Canada’s Outdated Wi-Fi Safety Rules”


Australian Researcher: Phone Radiation is a Hotline to Brain Cancer

© Flickr/ Ars Electronica


03:41 12.05.2015(updated 11:32 12.05.2015) Get short URL


A highly respected Australian doctor, currently in remission from brain cancer, is speaking out on his belief that radiation from wifi, cell phones and their towers is a major factor in increasing brain cancer rates.


Dr. John Tickell is attempting to raise awareness and is calling for more funding for brain cancer research, as it has become the number one most deadly cancer for young people in Australia. According to the Australian government, there are 35 new cases of the cancer discovered each week with four out of five cases being fatal in the first five years.


Time’s Up For Cancer: Google Files Patent for Cancer Killing Watch

“Leukaemia was once the leading causes of cancer deaths in Australia for under 40s but it now has a five-year survival rate of over 80 per cent. Breast cancer is around 90 cent compared to brain cancer which is around 20 per cent,” Tickell told the Herald Sun.

The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association is denying any detrimental health effects from their radiation, but the World Health Organization has recently upgraded the radiation threat to category B2, meaning “possibly carcinogenic.”

“You can say you can’t prove it — in my mind it is proven looking at the studies that are unfunded by industry,” he said.

The largest study to take place so far was conducted among 5000 cancer patients. The study found that there was no increased risk of overall cancer, but cellphone use was linked to patients having a 40% increased likeliness of developing Glioma, a common type of brain cancer.


Predicting Cancer 13 Years in Advance? Study Claims It’s Possible

Tickell also blasted the United States’ Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the fact that they have seemingly left all investigation to the telecommunications companies themselves.

“The telco-funded studies say they’re safe but the FCC has not done any tests on radiation from phones in 20 years,” Tickell lamented.

“There’s a million more times radiation in the air today than there was fifty years ago — that is frightening,” he said.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/science/20150512/1022019139.html#ixzz3ady4OCYG



Actual mention of term electro hyper sensitivity.

Actual mention of symptoms.

Actual 12.02.2014 House Oversight Committee Hearing of Missy Carden telling of her Husband Jim’s increase in epileptic seizures since Consumers Energy smart meter installed.


No mention of fires, over billing, hacking or better uses such as energy efficiency that the $2.25B Consumers is spending . . .




100 More Smart Meters Explode–in Capitola, CA This Time

Posted on May 21, 2015 by onthelevelblog



CAPITOLA, CA– Yesterday afternoon we received yet another report of exploding smart meters- this time in Capitola, CA:

“On 5.12, the Smart Meters blew off my house and about 100 neighbors, just like in Stockton. I didn’t see any mention of the Smart Meters blowing up in Capitola on 5.12 on your website and feel like PG&E just brushed it under the rug. My washing machine broke in the process and PG&E is not helpful at all.”


This follows a similar incident in Stockton, CA in March where meters blew off houses and many appliances were damaged after an electrical surge.


Utilities kindly correct us if we are mistaken, but this is not a phenomenon affecting glass and steel electromechanical analog meters. It’s too bad that we have such corrupt “oversight” that has not only allowed utilities to deploy this untested, hazardous technology on nearly every building- in violation of numerous laws- but then destroy millions of safe meters so it would be harder for policymakers to order a recall (which of course they now must do).


Sounds like a stitch-up and believe us- it is.  If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Capitola was one of 15 local governments in California to pass an ordinance banning the meters back in 2010 when we had just started our campaign. If PG&E and the corrupt California Public Utilities Commission had respected local law, things may have been different.


If the Santa Cruz County Sheriff had protected public safety and enforced the law rather than protecting and escorting those who violated it. If the Sheriff had not arrested us for civilly disobeying and rightfully blocking what we knew then was an unsafe deployment, the exploding meters and chronic RF sickness that have become part of the California landscape in 2015 may have been avoided.


How many millions of unsafe meters are sitting on people’s homes right now, waiting for a surge that can instantly transform electrical meters into incendiary bombs?

This morning, we called PG&E for comment (they always love to hear from us), and asked what the cause of the problem was, and asked for evidence of any similar incidents with analog meters. They said they would call us back.

We also contacted the Capitola City Council as well as state legislators for the area, State Senator Bill Monning and Assemblymember Mark Stone and have demanded an independent statewide investigation into these incidents.

We will report here what their responses are, and any updates or more information that comes in. If you were personally affected by this incident or know someone who was, we would like to hear from you.




Susan Foster 8:58am Jul 30
This article from the New York Times should worry everyone who cares about the truth. The Nat’l Cancer Institute is seeking to “rename” some cancers so that the word “cancer” is not included in the diagnosis. Some of these cancers are among the fastest growing (e.g. thyroid) & have been connected thru peer reviewed studies to cell phones.

Peter Inskip of the Nat’l Cancer Institute walked out of the World Health Organization’s IARC meeting before the 2B vote was taken (May 2011). He was firmly against classifying RF radiation from cell phones as a “PROBABLE CARCINOGEN” (plus all other forms of wireless including cell towers, smart meters, Wi-Fi). That vote was almost unanimous for the “probably carcinogen” status: 29 – 1. Is this move by the NCI a way of reducing our INCREASING CANCER RATES in some of the same categories NCI proposes to eliminate the word “cancer”? 

Scientists Seek to Rein In Diagnoses of Cancer


JULY 29, 2013 11:00 AM July 29, 2013 11:00 am 609 Comments


  • The panel said that some premalignant conditions found in mammograms should not be identified as cancer.

A group of experts advising the nation’s premier cancer research institution has recommended changing the definition of cancer and eliminating the word from some common diagnoses as part of sweeping changes in the nation’s approach to cancer detection and treatment.

The recommendations, from a working group of the National Cancer Institutewere published on Monday in The Journal of the American Medical Association. They say, for instance, that some premalignant conditions, like one that affects the breast called ductal carcinoma in situ, which many doctors agree is not cancer, should be renamed to exclude the word carcinoma so that patients are less frightened and less likely to seek what may be unneeded and potentially harmful treatments that can include the surgical removal of the breast.

The group, which includes some of the top scientists in cancer research, also suggested that many lesions detected during breast, prostate, thyroid, lung and other cancer screenings should not be called cancer at all but should instead be reclassified as IDLE conditions, which stands for “indolent lesions of epithelial origin.”

While it is clear that some or all of the changes may not happen for years, if it all, and that some cancer experts will profoundly disagree with the group’s views, the report from such a prominent group of scientists who have the backing of the National Cancer Institute brings the discussion to a higher level and will most likely change the national conversation about cancer, its definition, its treatment and future research.

“We need a 21st-century definition of cancer instead of a 19th-century definition of cancer, which is what we’ve been using,” said Dr. Otis W. Brawley, the chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, who was not directly involved in the report.

The impetus behind the call for change is a growing concern among doctors, scientists and patient advocates that hundreds of thousands of men and women are undergoing needless and sometimes disfiguring and harmful treatments for premalignant and cancerous lesions that are so slow growing they are unlikely to ever cause harm.

The advent of highly sensitive screening technology in recent years has increased the likelihood of finding these so-called incidentalomas — the name given to incidental findings detected during medical scans that most likely would never cause a problem. However, once doctors and patients are aware a lesion exists, they typically feel compelled to biopsy, treat and remove it, often at great physical and psychological pain and risk to the patient. The issue is often referred to as overdiagnosis, and the resulting unnecessary procedures to which patients are subjected are called overtreatment.

Cancer researchers warned about the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment as a result of new recommendations from a government panel that heavy smokers be given an annual CT scan. While the policy change, announced on Monday but not yet made final, has the potential to save 20,000 lives a year, some doctors warned about the cumulative radiation risk of repeat scans as well as worries that broader use of the scans will lead to more risky and invasive medical procedures.

Officials at the National Cancer Institute say overdiagnosis is a major public health concern and a priority of the agency. “We’re still having trouble convincing people that the things that get found as a consequence of mammography and P.S.A. testing and other screening devices are not always malignancies in the classical sense that will kill you,” said Dr. Harold E. Varmus, the Nobel Prize-winning director of the National Cancer Institute. “Just as the general public is catching up to this idea, there are scientists who are catching up, too.”


An expert panel says lesions found in some cancer screenings should not be called cancer but should instead be reclassified.   Credit Joe Raedle/Getty Images


One way to address the issue is to change the language used to describe lesions found through screening, said Dr. Laura J. Esserman, the lead author of the report in The Journal of the American Medical Association and the director of the Carol Franc Buck Breast Care Center at the University of California, San Francisco. In the report, Dr. Esserman and her colleagues said they would like to see a multidisciplinary panel convened to address the issue, led by pathologists, with input from surgeons, oncologists and radiologists, among others.

“Ductal carcinoma in situ is not cancer, so why are we calling it cancer?” said Dr. Esserman, who is a professor of surgery and radiology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Such proposals will not be universally embraced. Dr. Larry Norton, the medical director of the Evelyn H. Lauder Breast Center at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, said the larger problem is that doctors cannot tell patients with certainty which cancers will not progress and which cancers will kill them, and changing terminology does not solve that problem.

“Which cases of D.C.I.S. will turn into an aggressive cancer and which ones won’t?” he said, referring to ductal carcinoma in situ. “I wish we knew that. We don’t have very accurate ways of looking at tissue and looking at tumors under the microscope and knowing with great certainty that it is a slow-growing cancer.”

Dr. Norton, who was not part of the report, agreed that doctors do need to focus on better communication with patients about precancerous and cancerous conditions. He said he often tells patients that even though ductal carcinoma in situ may look like cancer, it will not necessarily act like cancer — just as someone who is “dressed like a criminal” is not actually a criminal until that person breaks the law.

“The terminology is just a descriptive term, and there’s no question that has to be explained,” Dr. Norton said. “But you can’t go back and change hundreds of years of literature by suddenly changing terminology.”

But proponents of downgrading cancerous conditions with a simple name change say there is precedent for doing so. The report’s authors note that in 1998, the World Health Organization changed the name of an early-stage urinary tract tumor, removing the word “carcinoma” and calling it “papillary urothelial neoplasia of low malignant potential.” When a common Pap smear finding called “cervical intraepithelial neoplasia” was reclassified as a low-grade lesion rather than a malignancy, women were more willing to submit to observation rather than demanding treatment, Dr. Esserman said.

“Changing the language we use to diagnose various lesions is essential to give patients confidence that they don’t have to aggressively treat every finding in a scan,” she said. “The problem for the public is you hear the word cancer, and you think you will die unless you get treated. We should reserve this term, ‘cancer,’ for those things that are highly likely to cause a problem.”

The concern, however, is that since doctors do not yet have a clear way to tell the difference between benign or slow-growing tumors and aggressive diseases with many of these conditions, they treat everything as if it might become aggressive. As a result, doctors are finding and treating scores of seemingly precancerous lesions and early-stage cancers — like ductal carcinoma in situ, a condition called Barrett’s esophagus, small thyroid tumors and early prostate cancer.

But even after years of aggressively treating those conditions, there has not been a commensurate reduction in invasive cancer, suggesting that overdiagnosis and overtreatment are occurring on a large scale.

The National Cancer Institute working group also called for a greater focus on research to identify both benign and slow-growing tumors and aggressive diseases, including the creation of patient registries to learn more about lesions that appear unlikely to become cancer.

Some of that research is already under way at the National Cancer Institute. Since becoming director of the institute three years ago, Dr. Varmus has set up a list of “provocative questions” aimed at encouraging scientists to focus on critical areas, including the issue of overdiagnosis and molecular tests to distinguish between slow-growing and aggressive tumors.

Another National Cancer Institute program, the Barrett’s Esophagus Translational Research Network, or Betrnet, is focused on changes in the esophageal lining that for years have been viewed as a precursor to esophageal cancer. Although patients with Barrett’s are regularly screened and sometimes treated by burning off the esophageal lining, data now increasingly suggest that most of the time, Barrett’s is benign and probably does not need to be treated at all. Researchers from various academic centers are now working together and pooling tissue samples to spur research that will determine when Barrett’s is most likely to become cancerous.

“Our investigators are not just looking for ways to detect cancer early, they are thinking about this question of when you find a cancer, what are the factors that might determine how aggressively it will behave,” Dr. Varmus said. “This is a long way from the thinking 20 years ago, when you found a cancer cell and felt you had a tremendous risk of dying.”


Well, they passed the 1996 TeleCom Law that prohibits communities from rejecting cell towers on the basis of health & environmental dangers–and that was written with NO scientific input at all–just engineers.

Bill H.R. 1422, also known as the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, passed 229-191. It was sponsored by Representative Chris Stewart (R-UT), pictured. The bill changes the rules for appointing members to the Science Advisory Board (SAB), which provides scientific advice to the EPA Administrator. Among many other things, it states: “Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work.” This means that a scientist who had published a peer-reviewed paper on a particular topic would not be able to advise the EPA on the findings contained within that paper. That is, the very scientists who know the subject matter best would not be able to discuss it.

Related: Petition: Don’t Put a Climate Change Denier in Charge of U.S. Environmental Policy!

On Monday, the White House issued a statement indicating it would veto the bill if it passed, noting: “H.R. 1422 would negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB.” Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) was more blunt, telling House Republicans on Tuesday: “I get it, you don’t like science. And you don’t like science that interferes with the interests of your corporate clients. But we need science to protect public health and the environment.”

Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists Andrew A. Rosenberg wrote a letter to House Representatives stating: “This [bill] effectively turns the idea of conflict of interest on its head, with the bizarre presumption that corporate experts with direct financial interests are not conflicted while academics who work on these issues are. Of course, a scientist with expertise on topics the Science Advisory Board addresses likely will have done peer-reviewed studies on that topic. That makes the scientist’s evaluation more valuable, not less.”

Two more bills relating to the EPA are set to go to the vote this week, bills that opponents argue are part of an “unrelenting partisan attack” on the EPA and that demonstrate more support for industrial polluters than the public health concerns of the American people.

Via Salon and Think Progress

Read more: House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA | Inhabitat – Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building




New study shows that we are not alone in responding to cell phone or beeper rings. Fetuses of pregnant physicians wearing devices startle in response to digital rings. Share the word that one hundred physicians advise against keeping such wireless radiating devices near the pregnant abdomen.

VIDEO ON FETAL EFFECTS: http://snip.ly/z7ab   http://snip.ly/z7ab#http://www.babysafeproject.org/


From WiFighter, Susan Foster

This article about WiFi, featuring the UK’s Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe, is being removed from the internet and some who want to post it on Facebook are being blocked. Please recirculate. If the truth is hurting the telecom bottom line, it is also hurting children.

Is Wi-Fi making your child ill?

As France bans Wi-Fi in nursery and primary schools, a British expert who has given up using wireless gadgets says we should do the same

Invisible threat: children exposed to wireless radiation could be at risk

Sponsored by TransferWise

By Florence Waters

7:00AM BST 09 May 2015

Six years ago, Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe moved to the country, stopped carrying a mobile phone and sacrificed a successful career in emergency medicine to focus on a new medical interest – radiation emitted by Wi-Fi, mobiles and other wireless devices.

She is now one of the country’s few professional advisers on medical conditions related to radiofrequency (RF) radiation and other electromagnetic fields (EMFs).

“I was using wireless devices before most people I knew – I loved it,” says Mallery-Blythe, who was ahead of the tech trend even in 1985 when she was handed her first mobile phone, aged 10.

“But as soon as I started digesting the literature on EMFs it was a no-brainer,” she says of her decision to relinquish wireless gadgets.

“I wasn’t willing to take that kind of risk for something that was purely convenient.”

Her interest in EMFs started in 2009 after she began noticing increasing trends in certain symptoms – headaches, insomnia, fatigue and palpitations, but also more serious conditions including brain tumours in young people, fertility problems and accelerating neurological diseases such as early onset Alzheimer’s and autism. As yet there is still no scientific proof that relates these diseases to radiation, but Mallery-Blythe is among a not insignificant number of scientists and practitioners concerned by those studies that do highlight cause for more precaution.

Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe discusses the effects of Wi-Fi radiation with a class of schoolchildren [PHOTO: GEOFF PUGH]

Over the past few years, as Wi-Fi, laptops and iPads have become increasingly prevalent in classrooms, Mallery-Blythe says “hundreds” of families have sought her help with what they believe to be EMF-related diseases and health issues.

One such case is that of nine-year-old Jessica Lewis’s family. In the autumn term of 2011, Jessica started to complain that she was getting bad headaches at school. She was also feeling overly tired, developed rashes on her legs and her parents said she looked “completely washed out” after school, particularly on Mondays. A quick internet search threw up a forum where parents had written that their children complained of similar symptoms after installing Wi-Fi.

“I ignored it. We didn’t know anything about Wi-Fi then,” says Jessica’s father, Paul Lewis. “We didn’t think her school had it.”

Later that term, at a parents’ evening, he noticed a Wi-Fi router near Jessica’s desk in her new form classroom. As it turned out, Monday was the day of the week the whole class worked on laptops.

When a local GP backed up Lewis’s suspicions about Wi-Fi being the probable cause of Jessica’s headaches, he went to some lengths to try to convince Spotbrough Copley Junior School in Doncaster to use wires instead of Wi-Fi, even offering to pay for the school building to be wired with cables.

The school pointed out that a government report advised that Wi-Fi exposures were well within internationally accepted standards. Guidelines were reviewed in 2011 and still stand today. “We do not think the balance of available scientific evidence on radiofrequency has shifted and, as such, our position remains that PHE [Public Health England] sees no reason why Wi-Fi should not continue to be used in schools and in other places,” says Dr Simon Mann at PHE, the Department of Health’s agency in charge of health protection.


Dr Mallery-Blythe tests radiation levels at a school internet router [PHOTO: GEOFF PUGH]

“That just didn’t add up,” says Lewis. Now Jessica is home-schooled, much to her frustration, because symptoms resurface when she’s exposed to Wi-Fi.

In February, insurance market Lloyd’s of London informed schools that it was excluding liability coverage for injuries “resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise”, which means that school officials could be personally liable for exposing children and staff to microwave radiation.

“The Government is expecting head teachers to decide whether risk versus benefit is worthwhile. This seems unfair to me,” says Mallery-Blythe. “Most teachers don’t even know that RF is currently classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a Group 2B carcinogen, which means it is a possible cause of cancer in humans. There is a vast amount of published literature documenting the harmful effects on every biological system. Most people understandably don’t have time to read and digest it all.”


As well as founding the Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment (PHIRE) to inform doctors of the issues and advise on best health practice, Mallery-Blythe gives talks to teachers around the country, in which she presents scientific studies that reveal both short and long-term effects of EMF exposure. One of the talks (below) has had more than 15,000 views on YouTube since last November. It’s an engaging summary of the issues that concerned scientists are discussing. “I try to present the facts the authorities aren’t highlighting,” says Mallery-Blythe.

I was surprised to find myself glued to it. Particularly eye-opening are the number of widely held misconceptions about radiation safety that Mallery-Blythe sets about busting. Standing a good distance away from a Wi-Fi router may reduce radiation intensity, for example, but low-intensity windows of radiation have been shown to be more harmful in some studies than higher-intensity exposures.

“At the moment people think their children are safe because the router is far away – or we don’t have to worry about the phone because it’s not near the brain. That’s common sense but unfortunately we now know it’s not quite true,” she says, pointing out that the brain is better protected than some more vulnerable parts of the body.

Are the Department of Health and PHE doing too little? “My main issue with the PHE’s stance is that it’s contradictory,” says Mallery-Blythe.

“They’ve issued a caution saying children under 16 shouldn’t be using mobile phones except for essential calls, but they’ve been quite happy to support the one-to-one iPad scheme, though an iPad can have an equivalent or higher SAR (the rate at which energy is absorbed by the human body when exposed to a radio frequency) than a phone.”

Switch your phone to flight mode or turn it off as often as you can, advises Dr Mallery-Blythe [PHOTO: GEOFF PUGH]

Associate Professor Olle Johansson, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, compares putting an iPhone near a baby’s head to “putting it next to several electric train engines”, pointing out that working with train engines is Sweden’s highest occupational exposure allowance.

Johansson has been researching the biological effects of radiofrequency (RF) wireless radiation for more than 30 years, but says it has become “extremely hard to get funding” in this area. “Given the importance of the subject I’d say that’s more than enigmatic.”

He predicts a “paradigm shift” in attitudes towards EMF. We are currently living in an environment estimated to contain more than 10 billion times more RF radiation than it did in the Sixties. “If this environment is safe we’re talking about in the order of 15,000 to 25,000 papers – in peer-reviewed scientific journals – all being wrong. That has never happened before.”

“We just want to see some precautionary action put in place, and we’re not seeing it.”

Wi-Fi at home: Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe’s advice

Try to keep your mobile switched off and don’t use it unless you need to. Keep it in flight mode when it is on and never carry your mobile close to your body, even on standby.

Don’t use Wi-Fi for internet. Instead use an Ethernet cable and buy a router with no wireless capacity or disable it. Disable Wi-Fi on your computer or tablet by disabling the wireless card via the control panel or putting it into flight mode.

Replace cordless landlines with corded ones. Most cordless telephones give off radiation whether they’re in use or not.


In February the French government banned Wi-Fi in nursery schoolsand restricted use in primary schools. The German government has recommended that the use of Wi-Fi in the workplace or home should be avoided where possible. LA has reduced student exposure to Wi-Fi radiation to 10,000 times below US government standard.

In 2000, a report commissioned by the Government concluded that no school should fall within 100 metres of a mobile phone mast; in 2007 a BBC Panorama programme found that the readings next to a classroom laptop showed radiation at double the level only 100 metres from a mobile phone mast.

A five-year-old absorbs up to 60 per cent more radiation than an adult due largely to their thinner skulls and the high water content of a young body. In Western countries brain tumours have overtaken leukaemia as the most common cause of cancer in children.

A 2008 study found a fivefold increase in the risk of glioma (a form of brain cancer now recognised by the World Health Organisation as being linked to mobile phone usage) for those starting mobile phone use under 20 years of age, indicating that the age group at first use is highly significant.

Schools and parents can find out more through ssita.org.uk


May 11, 2015

Business Wire Health Issues

International Scientists Appeal to U.N. To Protect Humans and Wildlife from Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Technology

May 11, 2015

© flickr/cc

NEW YORK–Today 190 scientists from 39 nations submitted an appeal to the United Nations, UN member states and the World Health Organization (WHO) requesting they adopt more protective exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless technology in the face of increasing evidence of risk. These exposures are a rapidly growing form of environmental pollution worldwide.

The “International EMF Scientist Appeal”asks the Secretary General and UN affiliated bodies to encourage precautionary measures, to limit EMF exposures, and to educate the public about health risks, particularly to children and pregnant women.

The Appeal highlights WHO’s conflicting positions about EMF risk. WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified Radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B “Possible Carcinogen” in 2011, and Extremely Low Frequency fields in 2001. Nonetheless, WHO continues to ignore its own agency’s recommendations and favors guidelines recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). These guidelines, developed by a self-selected group of industry insiders, have long been criticized as non-protective.

The Appeal calls on the UN to strengthen its advisories on EMF risk for humans and to assess the potential impact on wildlife and other living organisms under the auspices of the UN Environmental Programme, in line with the science demonstrating risk, thereby resolving this inconsistency.

Martin Blank, PhD, of Columbia University, says, “International exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields must be strengthened to reflect the reality of their impact on our bodies, especially on our DNA. The time to deal with the harmful biological and health effects is long overdue. We must reduce exposure by establishing more protective guidelines.”


Berkeley Cell Phone “Right to Know” Ordinance Adopted on 9-0 Vote This Evening

Berkeley, California, May 12, 2015

This evening the Berkeley City Council adopted the cell phone “right to know” ordinance on a unanimous vote of 9-0. Berkeley is the first city in the nation to pass a cell phone radiation ordinance since San Francisco disbanded its ordinance after a two-year court battle with the CTIA.

Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig helped draft the ordinance and presented it to the Council on behalf of city staff.

The only opposition to the ordinance came from the CTIA–The Wireless Association. The CTIA claims that consumers would be scared if they were directed to read the information that the FCC requires they provide to consumers.

For more information see http://bit.ly/berkeleycellordinance

Scores of Scientists Raise Alarm About the Long-Term Health Effects of Cellphones

Children in particular may be vulnerable.

—By Josh Harkinson

| Mon May 11, 2015 10:00 AM EDT


Are government officials doing enough to protect us from the potential long-term health effects of wearable devices and cellphones? Maybe not. A letter released today, signed by more than 190 scientists from 38 countries, calls on the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO), and national governments to develop stricter controls on these and other products that create electromagnetic fields (EMF).

“Based on peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices,” reads the letter, whose signatories have collectively published more than 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on the subject. “The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF.”

For decades, some scientists have questioned the safety of EMF, but their concerns take on a heightened significance in the age of ubiquitous wifi routers, the Internet of Things, and the advent of wearable technologies like the Apple Watch and Fitbitdevices, which remain in close contact with the body for extended periods.

“This is very much like studying tobacco back in the 1950s…The industry has co-opted many researchers.”

Cellphones, among the most studied emitters of electromagnetic radiation, remain the standard for judging health risks. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention maintains that “we do not have the science to link health problems to cell phone use.” In a 2012 review of all available research, Timothy Moynihan, a doctor with the respected Mayo Clinic,concluded that “there’s no consensus about the degree of cancer risk—if any—posed by cell phone use.”

The WHO, on the other hand, classifies radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation (the type emitted by wifi routers and cellphones) as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” based on limited evidence associating cellphone use with an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer. “The conclusion means that there could be some risk,” Dr. Jonathan Samet, a medical professor at the University of Southern California and chair of the WHO panel that made the determination, explained in 2011, “and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer.”

Studies since then have highlighted the need for caution. Last year, French researchers found an almost three-fold increase in the incidence of brain cancer in people with more than 900 hours of lifetime cellphone use. Then, in March, Swedish researchers reported that the risk of being diagnosed with brain cancer increased by a factor of three in people who’d used cell or cordless phones for at least 25 years. Research on lab animals has caused similar concerns.

Respected medical groups are starting to pay attention. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics urged the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates radiation levels in communication devices, to adopt cellphone standards that are more protective for children, and to better disclose products’ EMF levels to consumers. In December, the California Medical Association urged regulators to “reevaluate microwave radiation exposure levels associated with wireless communication devices.”

“We are really all part of a large biological experiment without our informed consent.”

Most of the researchers who signed today’s appeal letter believe that there’s now enough evidence to classify radio-frequency EMF as “probably carcinogenic” or even just plain “carcinogenic,” says Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California-Berkeley, who played a central role in gathering the signatures. “All of them are clearly calling for the need for caution.”

Reports about a lack of scientific consensus on the health effects of cellphones, which have appeared in SlateWiredthe Verge, and elsewhere are somewhat misleading, Moskowitz contends. In a 2009 review for the Journal of Clinical Oncology, he parsed cellphone studies based on the funding source and quality of the science. He found that low-quality and industry-funded studies tended not to associate cellphone use with a heightened risk of tumors, while high-quality and foundation- or public-funded studies usually found the opposite result. “This is very much like studying tobacco back in the 1950s,” he says. “The industry has co-opted many researchers.”

In 2011, Moskowitz consulted for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors after it voted to pass the nation’s first right-to-know cellphone ordinance. The law would have forced retailers to warn consumers about potentially dangerous radiation levels emitted by cell phones, but the supervisors agreed to effectively nix the law to settle a court challenge by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association; the industry’s lead trade group argued that the law violated its free speech rights. (The CTIA did not return a call from Mother Jones requesting comment on today’s appeal letter and the health effects of cellphones.)

On Tuesday, the Berkeley City Council will vote on a right-to-know law that was carefully worded to thwart legal challenges. Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig, who helped craft the law, has volunteered to defend it in court pro bono. “We are really all part of a large biological experiment without our informed consent,” says Columbia University EMF expert Martin Blank in a video released to coincide with today’s letter. “To protect ourselves, our children, and our ecosystem, we must reduce exposure by establishing more protective guidelines.”



This is a great song video by Trillion.





Wearable Device Changes Your Mood

JUN 2, 2015 01:37 PM ET // BY TRACY STAEDTER


Wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Got a case of the Tuesdays? Did some person — a woman you thought you knew really well? — did that someone’s racist post on Facebook really stick in your craw and leave you peeved all morning, questioning the nature of humanity, until you had to just unfriend said person, even though you’ve known her for twenty-plus years?

Is Your Personality Affected By Your Birth Season?

Well, have we got something for you. It’s Thync, a wearable device that zaps your brain with low levels of pulsed electrical energy to calm you down or energize you up. It could be, for all intents and purposes, the world’s first digital drug.

Will Shanklin of Gizmag first tried Thync at the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2015 and has written about it again with the company’s latest announcement that it’s now taking.

Shanklin says he was skeptical at first, but after using the head-mounted gadget a couple of times, says he has “the wearable batting 1,000, as the device’s two different modes left me feeling a meditative calm and an inspired energy — just as they’re supposed to.”

The Thync System, founded by Jamie Tyler, who has a Ph.D. in neuroscience and bioengineering and Isy Goldwasser, is a wireless device that pairs with an iPhone or iPad via a Bluetooth connection (Android app coming soon). Using the app, you chose the kind of session, the intensity as well as the length of a session.

Zap Your Brain To Change Your Mood

Shanklin describes the calm mode giving him a feeling as if he just smoked a joint. The energy mode provide his brain with more clarity.

Thync is considered a lifestyle product, as opposed to a medical device, and therefore hasn’t undergone any testing, except those required by the Underwriter’s Laboratory to ensure its electrical safety.

You can order it now for $299 and if you’re not satisfied, can return it within 30 days for a full refund. Operators are standing by.

via Gizmag

Step right up here and be the first on your block to get your own, wearable Mitochondrial Genome Modifier/Circadian Rhythm Disruptor for only $299.00!!! Its Electrical impulses will keep you totally oblivious to its adverse effects – as well as to all of the other adverse effects caused by everyone and everything in and around you.

Disclaimer: We will not be responsible for any Genome damages to you or the rest of your descendents or for any other bodily injury that takes place while you immerse yourself in the wrong states of consciousness/rates of energy for – living and growing on Earth – and making yourself a sitting duck for all of those who will gladly take advantage of you in these arrythmic “moods”.


DO NOT use this device if you have a cardiac pacemaker, implanted defibrillator, or other implanted metallic or electronic device. Doing so could cause electric shock, burns, electrical interference or death.

DO NOT use during pregnancy or if you are breastfeeding. If you are in the care of a physician, consult your physician before using this device.

DO NOT use this device if you have epilepsy or a history of seizures.

DO NOT use this device if you have a Temporomandibular Joint Disorder, Bell’s Palsy, impaired cranial nerve function, or facial pain.

DO NOT place Thync Strips on body in locations other than those directed.

DO NOT use this device while driving, operating machinery, or during any activity in which electrical stimulation can put you at risk for injury.

DO NOT use the device while in a shower, bath, pool, or other body of water.

DO NOT place electrodes over open wounds, sores or rashes, or over swollen, red, infected, or inflamed areas or skin eruptions. If you experience an adverse reaction, discontinue use.

DO NOT use device if the housing has been damaged.

DO NOT use device in the presence of strong electromagnetic fields.

DO NOT use this device on children under the age of 18.

DO NOT place this device across your chest. The introduction of an electrical current to the chest may cause rhythm disturbances to your heart, which could be lethal.

DO NOT place device over the carotid sinus nerves, the front of the neck, or around the mouth.

ADVERSE REACTIONS: If you experience adverse reactions, stop using the device and consult with your physician. Users with sensitive skin may experience skin irritation in the area where the electrode is applied. You may experience a headache and other painful sensations during or following the application of electrical stimulation.

Safety (??) Study:http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/432410/documents/peerJ.pdf…

Neurosignaling Study: http://cdn2.hubspot.net/…/Scien…/Stress_reduction_by_TEN.pdf

Los Alamos: A Whistleblower’s Diary is a shocking account of foul play, theft and abuse at our nation’s premier nuclear R&D installation, uncovering a retaliatory culture where those who dare to question pay with their careers and, potentially, their lives. This is a story about military-industrial dominance, and distortions of reality. It is a first-of-its-kind exposé, venturing past LANL’s armed guards and security fences to chronicle persistent, often successful efforts to prevent hidden truths from coming to surface in the wake of headline-grabbing events . . . as in the mysterious death of the laboratory’s second-in-command, coming on the heels of a derailed fraud investigation, on the eve of related congressional hearings—an unconscionable cover-up rooted in arrogance, omissions and lies. Seventy years after its inception, and despite LANL’s $2 billion per year budget, the secret science colony on “the Hill” remains largely unaccountable to anyone, plus a mystery to most. This book reveals, in terrifying detail, that this is no accident, and is a dire warning … Los Alamos: A Whistleblower’s Diary is a shocking account of foul play, theft and abuse at our nation’s premier nuclear R&D installation, uncovering a retaliatory culture where those who dare to question pay with their careers and, potentially, their lives. This is a story about military-industrial dominance, and distortions of reality. It is a first-of-its-kind exposé, venturing past LANL’s armed guards and security fences to chronicle persistent, often successful efforts to prevent hidden truths from coming to surface in the wake of headline-grabbing events . . . as in the mysterious death of the laboratory’s second-in-command, coming on the heels of a derailed fraud investigation, on the eve of related congressional hearings—an unconscionable cover-up rooted in arrogance, omissions and lies. Seventy years after its inception, and despite LANL’s $2 billion per year budget, the secret science colony on “the Hill” remains largely unaccountable to anyone, plus a mystery to most. This book reveals, in terrifying detail, that this is no accident, and is a dire warning


Scientists and safety advocates say Health Canada new rules do not take into account many new studies on the safety of cellphones and other wireless devices.

Federal parliamentarians concluded three hearings into Health Canada’s safety regulations for cellphones and other wireless devices by asking for a detailed analysis of numerous recent cancer studies that indicate far tougher safety regulations may be warranted.

The studies in question were not acknowledged in the scientific review, Safety Code 6 (2015) — Rationale, which exclusively released to CMAJ by Health Canada. The Safety Code 6 guideline, which was released Mar. 13, states that no new biological information pertinent to safety guidelines has emerged since 2009. Further, it states that the large number of recent studies raising safety concerns “suffer from a lack of evidence of causality, biological plausibility and reproducibility and do not provide a credible foundation for making science-based recommendations.”

This contention led scientists and safety advocates at the hearings before Parliament’s Standing Committee on Health to mount a withering attack, saying that Health Canada’s Rationale and Safety Code 6 are outdated, incomplete and invalid.

As a result, at the conclusion of the hearings on Apr. 30, the Standing Committee on Health asked Health Canada to “provide detailed information in the form of a full scientific monograph” on its assessment of 140 studies identified as alarming by Canadians for Safe Technology, an Oakville, Ontario–based advocacy group.

The group’s CEO, Frank Clegg told the health committee on Apr. 23 that despite paying the Royal Society of Canada $100 000 to convene a panel to assess the safety of radiowave-emitting devices (a panel that was subsequently marred by conflict-of-interest allegations and the resignation of its chairman) “Health Canada has not invested the necessary time, nor had the balanced opinion of experts necessary to undertake a proper review.”

After noting that health regulators failed to forestall public health disasters with tobacco, asbestos, bisphenol A, thalidomide, DDT and urea formaldehyde insulation, Clegg said “prudent avoidance” should be recommended with cellphones and Wi-Fi “until the science proves beyond reasonable doubt that there is no potential for harm. For the last three years science has published a new study every month that shows irreparable harm at levels below Safety Code 6.”

Clegg told the health committee that China and Russia have guidelines 100 times safer than Health Canada’s Safety Code 6. “Canada should be among progressive countries such as France, Belgium and Taiwan that have laws in place to protect children in the home and at school or daycare centres,” Clegg says.

“A proper scientific evaluation would clearly show that Health Canada is not taking the appropriate action to safeguard the health of Canadians.”

Clegg’s comments echo those of Terence Young, the Conservative MP for Oakville, Ont. who has a record of successfully proposing and passing health safety legislation. In January, Young tabled a private member’s bill that would require manufacturers to place clearly visible safety warnings on all cellphones, cordless phones and radio frequency–emitting devices such as Wi-Fi transmitters.

In an intense confrontation at the health committee meeting, Young demanded that Health Canada explain its methodologies for rejecting evidence from a series of recently published studies by Swedish researcher Dr. Lennart Hardell. In his most recent study, Hardell concluded “that glioma and also acoustic neuroma are caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones, and thus regarded as carcinogenic …indicating that current guidelines for exposure should be urgently revised” (Pathophysiology 2015;22:1-13).


James McNamee, chief, Health Effects and Assessments Division, at Health Canada’s Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, who is the Rationale’s principal author, responded to Young’s inquiry.

He said the department’s evaluation principally relied on a scientific review completed in May 2011 by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which concluded that cellphones and other wireless devices such as cordless phones and Wi-Fi transmitters are possibly — although not probably — carcinogenic.

“We’re subject to the evidence base we have at this time,” said McNamee, who coauthored two scientific reviews with scientists who have acknowledged accepting payments from industry and government in return for promoting industry and government safety assurances (J Toxicol Environ Health B 2009​12:2004-7; Int J Radiat Biol 2005 81:189-203).

McNamee’s reliance on the studies included in the IARC’s four-year-old review as still the most pertinent evidence available was subsequently called into question during the health committee hearings by one the IARC review’s own authors.

Dr. Anthony Miller, a University of Toronto professor emeritus who served as scientific secretary for the IARC panel, says Hardell’s new research “reinforces the evidence that radio frequency fields are not just a possible human carcinogen, but a probable human carcinogen.”

Hardell’s studies, Miller told the committee members, “would be impossible to ignore in regulatory approaches to such a hazard” had Health Canada carefully considered them.

Hardell agrees. After reviewing the Rationale, Hardell described Health Canada’s safety guidelines in an interview with CMAJ as “a disaster to public health” and based on a scientific analysis “unwilling or not competent to make evaluation of the current literature.”

Miller says the Rationale overlooks numerous other important studies as well as Hardell’s, including a recent study by Gaëlle Coureau, of Université Bordeaux Segalen, which concluded that it supports “previous findings concerning a possible association between heavy mobile phone use and brain tumours” (Occup Environ Med2014;71:514–22).

After reviewing the Rationale, Coureau told CMAJ its analysis of the epidemiological literature did not warrant discussion.

Hardell and Coureau are not the only authors of recent studies raising concerns about cellphone safety who take issue with McNamee’s Rationale and Safety Code 6.

At McGill University in Montréal, Paul Héroux, author of a recent paper indicating extra-low-frequency magnetic fields alter cancer cells through metabolic restriction, describes the Rationale as a document that deliberately ignores all studies that call Safety Code 6into question (Electromagn Biol Med 2014;​33:264-75). “The soul of science is to revise health protection when evidence undermines previous thinking and this review fails to do that.”

At Washington University in Seattle, Henry Lai, author of numerous studies indicating radiofrequency exposure appears to affect DNA damage and repair, described the Rationale to CMAJ as “simplistic and out-of-date” with “too much focus on dosimetry and theoretical calculations, at the expense of basic concepts of biology and health”

The Rationale, Lai adds “fails to take into account at least a couple of hundred papers published between 2009 and 2014 on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation, such as changes in cellular and reproductive functions. Many of these studies show effects at exposure levels much lower than the [Safety Code 6] limits.”

Although CMAJ was invited by Health Canada to interview McNamee before he testified to the committee, the invitation was withdrawn without explanation after he testified. In response to written questions submitted to McNamee by CMAJ, Health Canada emailed a statement on Apr. 30 explaining that “Departmental scientists considered all available peer-reviewed scientific studies when developing the exposure limits in the revised Safety Code 6.”

Their review “employed a weight-of-evidence approach when evaluating possible health risks,” the Department explained, while acknowledging it has elected not to publish McNamee’s Rationale on its website devoted to Safety Code 6. “Health Canada’s updated Safety Code 6 makes Canada’s limits among the most stringent science-based limits in the world,” it added.



NextG agrees to pay $14.5 million for role in 2007 Malibu fire

Under a proposed settlement, NextG would pay $8.5 million into California’s general fund and another $6 million to have telephone poles inspected. The 2007 fire was sparked by toppled poles.

February 22, 2013|By Martha Groves, Los Angeles Times


A phone company whose equipment on a top-heavy pole was partly to blame for the 2007 Malibu Canyon fire has agreed to pay $14.5 million under a proposed settlement, according to legal documents.

NextG Networks of California Inc., now owned by Crown Castle NG West Inc., will pay $8.5 million into California’s general fund and $6 million to hire independent engineers to inspect each of the company’s attachments on tens of thousands of poles in California. Any pole found to be overloaded or decayed would be replaced, with co-owners sharing the cost.

On Oct. 21, 2007, three utility poles on Malibu Canyon Road snapped and fell to the ground, igniting brush. Propelled by strong Santa Ana winds, the resulting blaze burned thousands of acres and destroyed or damaged nearly three dozen houses and other buildings.

The poles that toppled were jointly owned by Southern California Edison Co., AT&T Mobility, Sprint Telephony, Verizon Wireless and NextG.

In January 2009, the California Public Utilities Commission opened a case to determine whether the five companies had violated the utilities code or other rules when they installed equipment on the poles. In the settlement agreement signed Thursday, NextG acknowledged that it failed to talk to other telecom companies or Edison before adding cables to one of the poles that broke.

Hans Laetz, a part-time journalist and Malibu resident who has campaigned for power pole safety, opposed the September agreement, saying it did not provide adequate protection for Malibu against future fires that might be caused by overloaded poles.

He praised the NextG settlement agreement for stipulating that overloaded or damaged poles be inspected and replaced as necessary. The settlement is subject to a vote by the full commission.

The settlement means that inspectors will examine NextG’s poles, “starting in Malibu and then working out through all of western Los Angeles County,” Laetz said. “We know there are many that are overloaded.”

Hearings into Edison’s involvement in the blaze were to begin Monday but now must wait until the commission has acted on NextG’s settlement.

The NextG settlement “is really precedent setting,” said Malibu Councilwoman Laura Z. Rosenthal. “We all know all the overloading that has been going on. Malibu is vulnerable.”


Times staff writer Matt Stevens contributed to this report.



Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering

Other wealthy individuals have also funded a series of reports into the future use of technologies to geoengineer the climate


John Vidal, environment editior


A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires Including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.

The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a “plan B” for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of international research.

Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial: while some climate scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow global warming, others fear that when conducted in the upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and interfere with the earth’s climate.

Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space, except for small-scale scientific studies.

Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy.

“We will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure that choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant amounts of money through a choice to modify climate, especially using proprietary intellectual property,” said Jane Long, director at large for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper delivered to a recent geoengineering conference on ethics.

The stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to deal with the social, ethical or political issues that geoengineering raises,” said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace. “The idea that a self-selected group should have so much influence is bizarre.”

Pressure to find a quick technological fix to climate change is growing as politicians fail to reach an agreement to significantly reduce emissions. In 2009-2010, the US government received requests for over $2bn(£1.2bn) of grants for geoengineering research, but spent around $100m.

As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of official reports into future use of the technology. Branson, who has frequently called for geoengineering to combat climate change, helped fund the Royal Society’s inquiry into solar radiation management last year through his Carbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.

Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, [see footnote] are the world’s two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (Ficer). Nearly half Ficer’s money, which comes directly from Gates’s personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.

According to statements of financial interests, Keith receives an undisclosed sum from Bill Gates each year, and is the president and majority owner of the geoengineering company Carbon Engineering, in which both Gates and Edwards have major stakes – believed to be together worth over $10m.

Another Edwards company, Canadian Natural Resources, has plans to spend $25bn to turn the bitumen-bearing sand found in northern Alberta into barrels of crude oil. Caldeira says he receives $375,000 a year from Gates, holds a carbon capture patent and works for Intellectual Ventures, a private geoegineering research company part-owned by Gates and run by Nathan Myhrvold, former head of technology at Microsoft.

According to the latest Ficer accounts, the two scientists have so far given $300,000 of Gates money to part-fund three prominent reviews and assessments of geoengineering – the UK Royal Society report on Solar Radiation Management,the US Taskforce on Geoengineering and a 2009 report by Novin a science thinktank based in Santa Barbara, California. Keith and Caldeira either sat on the panels that produced the reports or contributed evidence. All three reports strongly recommended more research into solar radiation management.

The fund also gave $600,000 to Phil Rasch, chief climate scientist for the Pacific Northwest national laboratory, one of 10 research institutions funded by the US energy department.

Rasch gave evidence at the first Royal Society report on geoengineering 2009 and was a panel member on the 2011 report. He has testified to the US Congress about the need for government funding of large-scale geoengineering. In addition, Caldeira and Keith gave a further $240,000 to geoengineering advocates to travel and attend workshops and meetings and $100,000 to Jay Apt, a prominent advocate of geoengineering as a last resort, and professor of engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. Apt worked with Keith and Aurora Flight Sciences, a US company that develops drone aircraft technology for the US military, to study the costs of sending 1m tonnes of sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere a year.

Analysis of the eight major national and international inquiries into geoengineering over the past three years shows that Keith and Caldeira, Rasch and Prof Granger Morgan the head of department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University where Keith works, have sat on seven panels, including one set up by the UN. Three other strong advocates of solar radiation geoengineering, including Rasch, have sat on national inquiries part-funded by Ficer.

“There are clear conflicts of interest between many of the people involved in the debate,” said Diana Bronson, a researcher with Montreal-based geoengineering watchdog ETC.

“What is really worrying is that the same small group working on high-risk technologies that will geoengineer the planet is also trying to engineer the discussion around international rules and regulations. We cannot put the fox in charge of the chicken coop.”

“The eco-clique are lobbying for a huge injection of public funds into geoengineering research. They dominate virtually every inquiry into geoengineering. They are present in almost all of the expert deliberations. They have been the leading advisers to parliamentary and congressional inquiries and their views will, in all likelihood, dominate the deliberations of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as it grapples for the first time with the scientific and ethical tangle that is climate engineering,” said Clive Hamilton, professor of Public Ethics at the Australian National University, in a Guardian blog.

The scientists involved reject this notion. “Even the perception that [a small group of people has] illegitimate influence [is] very unhealthy for a technology which has extreme power over the world. The concerns that a small group [is] dominating the debate are legitimate, but things are not as they were,” said Keith. “It’s changing as countries like India and China become involved. The era when my voice or that of a few was dominant is over. We need a very broad debate.”

“Every scientist has some conflict of interest, because we would all like to see more resources going to study things that we find interesting,” said Caldeira. “Do I have too much influence? I feel like I have too little. I have been calling for making CO2 emissions illegal for many years, but no one is listening to me. People who disagree with me might feel I have too much influence. The best way to reduce my influence is to have more public research funds available, so that our funds are in the noise. If the federal government played the role it should in this area, there would be no need for money from Gates.

“Regarding my own patents, I have repeatedly stated that if any patent that I am on is ever used for the purposes of altering climate, then any proceeds that accrue to me for this use will be donated to nonprofit NGOs and charities. I have no expectation or interest in developing a personal revenue stream based upon the use of these patents for climate modification.”.

Rasch added: “I don’t feel there is any conflict of interest. I don’t lobby, work with patents or intellectual property, do classified research or work with for-profit companies. The research I do on geoengineering involves computer simulations and thinking about possible consequences. The Ficer foundation that has funded my research tries to be transparent in their activities, as do I.”






“Fifteen studies from show that ELF and RF/MW exposure reduces melatonin in people and a serotonin enhancement. Evidence that EMR reduced melatonin in human beings commenced with Wang (1989) who found that workers who were more highly exposed to RF/MW had a dose-response increase in serotonin, and hence indicates a reduction in melatonin. Thirteen studies have observed significant EMR associated melatonin reduction in humans.”

EMR Reduces Melatonin in Animals and People

Dr Neil Cherry

The Pineal Gland:

The pineal gland, a pea-sized organ near the centre of the brain, converts serotonin into melatonin. This has a strong diurnal (daily) pattern, with high melatonin output at night and low melatonin output during the day. Alternatively, serotonin dominates the day and is lower at night. The Melatonin/Serotonin cycle is a primary physiological driver of the daily metabolic, awake/sleep cycle. Melatonin is a vital part of many of the bodies biochemical systems, including sleep and learning and is free radical scavenging in all cells and hence is a potent antioxidant with anti-aging and anti-cancer properties. It helps to protect embryonic fetuses. Melatonin mediates many hormone functions, assists in maintaining immune system health and virus protection.

Figure 1: A schematic cross-section of the brain highlighting the pineal glad.

The light-driven daily cycle is primarily controlled by signals from the retina of the eyes that mediate the pineal function though a flow of chemical messengers. Signal messengers from the retina arrive at the receptors on the surface of the pinealocytes. Through regulation of the cyclic AMP (cAMP) pathway, the serotonin/melatonin transformation is controlled.

A key element of the cAMP pathway is calcium ions. Substances that can alter cellular calcium ions act at many levels involving many cell receptors and cellular processes. Calcium ion efflux from the pinealocytes has the effect of reducing melatonin through reducing the cAMP, Figure 2.
Figure 2: The biochemical mediation system for serotonin transformation to melatonin in the pinealocytes showing the signal transduction pathways from the retina to the cell and the cell receptor, through cyclic AMP and NAT to the transformation process, Reiter (1994).

EMR alters calcium ion homeostasis:

Electromagnetic radiation across the spectrum alters calcium ion homeostasis in cells. The primary factor is the ELF modulation of the signal, Bawin and Adey (1976), Adey (1980). This occurs in a complex set of exposure windows. The efflux and influx for calcium ions also varies with ambient temperature, geomagnetic field strength and orientation, and signal intensity, Blackman et al. (1988, 1989, 1991). Blackman (1990) concludes that this is an established biological mechanism. Blackman et al. (1991) showed that Ca2+ efflux occurred for tissue temperatures of 36° C and 37 ° C and not at 35° C and 38° C. They comment that these could be very good reasons why experimental outcomes have been difficult to confirm in some laboratories. This shows why high SAR exposures do not produce altered calcium ions because the rise in tissue temperature takes the tissue outside the homeostatic thermal range within which calcium ion efflux/influx occurs to regulate normal cell behaviour.

The calcium ion efflux research demonstrates one of the fundamental principles of EMR research. Under given specific conditions the calcium ion efflux (positive or negative) does occur at some combination of exposure conditions, but not at a nearby slightly different set of conditions. This is because of the “window” non-linear nature of the effect with respect to modulation frequency and intensity in particular. Also, one set of conditions that produce a significant effect in one laboratory does not produce any observed effect in another laboratory because it has a different geomagnetic field. On the other hand, in real world situations workers or residents are continually passing through effective and non-effective windows of exposure.

There are great difficulties of detecting melatonin reduction in people because of the large intra-personal differences from day to day, and the very large inter-personal differences. Despite this, on average there is a dominance of exposure conditions that do cause calcium ion efflux and reduced melatonin, so that it is observed to differ in most monitored populations in the real world.

Full article: http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/Research/emf-emr/EMR-Reduces-Melatonin.htm



Aluminum is toxic to all life forms:

The case against aluminum in vaccines.

Dr Suzanne Humphries, Internist and Nephrologist, shows that Paul Offit’s absurd claim that aluminum ‘plays an important role in the development of a healthy fetus’ is completely made up. (Offie is an American pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases and considered an expert on vaccines, immunology, and virology.)


The Brain Tumor That Killed the Vice President’s Son Has Been Linked to Cell Phone Radiation

June 4, 2015 By Julie Fidler

The Brain Tumor Linked to Cell Phone Radiation
Last Saturday, Joseph “Beau” Biden lost his life to brain cancer. The son of Vice President Joe Biden had a glioblastoma multiforme, or GBM. This all-too-common tumor has been linked to cell phone use.


According to The Daily Beast, GBM is an aggressive and often fatal form of cancer. The estimated two-year survival rate is only 17 percent for patients between 40 and 65 years old. Scientists are not sure what the underlying causes of GBM are, but “Some believe that environmental risk factors, such as radiation from cellphone use, may contribute to brain cancer.”


Last fall, Swedish doctors found that people who use cell phones for more than a year had a 70 percent greater risk of brain cancer than those who used the wireless devices for less than a year. The study, published in the International Journal of Oncology, found that people who used mobile phones for more than 25 years had a 300 percent greater risk of developing the dreaded disease than those who used mobile phones for one year or less. The study’s authors concluded that “glioma and also acoustic neuroma are caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones.”


In 2012, the Supreme Court of Italy granted worker’s compensation to Innocente Marcolini, a businessman who developed a tumor after using a cell phone for 12 years. It marked the first time that any court, anywhere in the world, ruled in favor of a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumors. Marcolini was a financial manager at an industrial plant in Brescia, Italy, who used a cell phone for about five hours daily. Around 2002, the then-50-year-old man felt an odd tingling sensation in his chin while he was shaving. He was diagnosed with a nerve tumor. Marcolini’s worker’s compensation claim alleged that the tumor was the result of the wireless phones he was required to use for work. Marcolini’s case was at first rejected, but the Court of Appeals in Brescia reversed the decision in 2009; on October 18, 2012, Italy’s Supreme Court affirmed the Appeals Court’s ruling.


The World Health Organization (WHO) has upgraded cell phone radiation to B2 category, meaning “possibly carcinogenic.”








This was founded by a distant cousin of mine, Sue Blevins, RN, who fought bravely as a watchdog on Washington, DC passing laws nobody was informed about re: digitalization of medical records, genetic ownership rights, parental rights and children’s healthcare issues—This site provides a library of how our freedoms have been eroded on all these issues and how to protect yourself.

About the Institute for Health Freedom (IHF)
Which existed between 1996 and 2010

The Institute for Health Freedom (IHF) was founded in 1996 and disbanded in 2010. Its programs, including its newsletter Health Freedom Watch, were transferred to Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom. (Ed note: this is not Sue but somebody else and more extreme.)

IHF was founded to bring the issues of personal health freedom to the forefront of America’s health policy debate. Over the years, IHF presented the ethical and economic case for strengthening personal “health freedom,” defined as “The freedom to choose one’s health care providers and treatments, and to maintain confidential relationships with one’s providers, without interference from government or private third parties.” Over the years, IHF’s perspectives on health freedom and medical privacy issues were cited in newspapers across the country, including the Boston Globe, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post.

IHF was founded by Sue A. Blevins, who served as IHF’s president from 1996 to 2010. A former Registered Nurse, Ms. Blevins developed her insights into the American and Canadian health care systems through years of hands-on experience in both of those countries. She received a Master of Public Health degree from Harvard University and Master of Science and Bachelor of Science degrees from Johns Hopkins University.




Brain implant could restore MEMORIES in wounded soldiers and Alzheimer’s sufferers – but is it ethical?

  • The brain implant plans were first unveiled in February by U.S researchers
  • They are being developed by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Project was set up to restore memories in people with brain damage
  • This includes wounded soldiers plus Alzheimer’s and dementia patients

Exact details are still being developed but it would build on memory studies carried out on monkeys and rats 

  • But critics have said manipulating memories is ethically wrong


PUBLISHED: 07:01 EST, 1 May 2014 | UPDATED: 10:14 EST, 2 May 2014


DARPA will restore memories with implants in soldiers. This might also be used as mind-control with the aid of wireless techniques. “Eventually, DARPA hopes to develop a device that is portable and wireless and that ‘must incorporate implantable probes’ which will both record and stimulate brain activity.”

Aside from the physical impacts brain damage has on the body, the loss of memory can be as devastating and restrictive.

The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is working on restoring these memories using brain implants that could reverse the loss in wounded soldiers, and benefit Alzheimer’s and dementia patients.

Although the exact science behind the plans won’t be announced ‘for a few months’, a medical ethicist has expressed concerns the technology could interfere with a patient’s personality and even their conscience.

The U.S Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has revealed more details about its memory stimulator. Its implants will be used to restore memories in wounded soldiers, as well as Alzheimer’s sufferers, and could involve stimulating the hippocampus, highlighted, the part of the brain involved in processing memories



As part of the project, DARPA hopes to build on neuroengineering advances such as implants already used to treat Parkinson’s disease.

It will also draw on the work carried out on monkeys and rodents by Wake Forest University.

Studies have proved neurons in the hippocampus – the part of the brain that processes memory – fire differently when animals see different colours, for example.

Using prosthetics designed to stimulate the hippocampus, researchers were able to extend the short-term, working memory of these animals.

But to restore a human’s specific memory, scientists would need to know the precise pattern for that memory.

Alternatively, they could restore the brain to work in a way it used to before the injury or damage was caused.

The brain implant plans were first unveiled in February by U.S researchers seeking contributions from relevant drug and technology companies.

During a conference at Center for Brain Health at the University of Texas at Dallas this week, project manager Justin Sanchez said: ‘If you have been injured in the line of duty and you can’t remember your family, we want to be able to restore those kinds of functions.

‘We think that we can develop neuroprosthetic devices that can directly interface with the hippocampus, and can restore the first type of memories we are looking at, the declarative memories.’

But medical ethicist Arthur Caplan said: ‘When you fool around with the brain you are fooling around with personal identity.

‘If I could take a pill or put a helmet on and have some memories wiped out, maybe I don’t have to live with the consequences of what I do.’

As part of the project, DARPA hopes to build on neuroengineering advances such as implants already used to treat Parkinson’s disease, built by Minneapolis firm Medtronic.

First Lieutenant Jay Park is pictured undergoing cognitive testing at the Fort Campbell Army Base in Kentucky. It’s estimated more than 280,000 soldiers have some form of brain injury. The DARPA project is a section of President Obama’s BRAIN initiative, created to fund research to treat common brain disorders.

Brainwaves are pictured on a computer screen. DARPA hopes to develop a device that is portable and wireless and that ‘must incorporate implantable probes’ which will both record and stimulate brain activity

Medtronic’s implant is already authorised for sale in the U.S. and similar devices manufactured by Minnesota’s St. Jude Medical, and Boston Scientific in Massachusetts, are in the process of gaining approval.

It will also draw on the work carried out on monkeys and rodents by Robert Hampson, an associate professor at Wake Forest University.

DARPA hopes to build on neuroengineering advances such as implants already used to treat Parkinson’s disease, including the Medtronic, pictured

He has proved neurons in the hippocampus – the part of the brain that processes memory – fire differently when animals see different colours, or pictures of food compared to faces.

Using prosthetics designed to stimulate the hippocampus, Hampson was able to extend the short-term, working memory of his subjects.

But to restore a human’s specific memory, Hampson said scientists would need to know the precise pattern for that memory.

Alternatively, they could restore the brain to work in a way it used to before the injury or damage was caused to improve and develop their memory.

‘The way human memory works is one of the great unsolved mysteries,’ said Andres Lozano, chairman of neurosurgery at the University of Toronto.

‘This has tremendous value from a basic science aspect. It may have huge implications for patients with disorders affecting memory, including those with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.’

The DARPA project is a section of President Barack Obama’s BRAIN initiative, created to fund research that could treat common brain disorders.

Eventually, DARPA hopes to develop a device that is portable and wireless and that ‘must incorporate implantable probes’ which will both record and stimulate brain activity.

Sanchez confirmed more details about the plans will be announced ‘in the next few months.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2617705/Brain-implant-restore-MEMORIES-wounded-soldiers-Alzheimers-sufferers-ethical.html#ixzz30n6WV3s8
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Chemtrails, Nanoaluminum, and Neurodegenerative and Neurodevelopmental Effects.
– http://youtu.be/X3lW-TGGlk0

The internet is littered with stories of “Chemtrails” and Geoengineering to combat “global warming”; and, until recently, I took these stories with a grain of salt. One of the main reasons for my skepticism was that I rarely saw what they were describing in the skies. But over the past several years I have noticed a great number of these trails and I have to admit they are not like the contrails I grew up seeing in the skies. They are extensive, quite broad, are laid in a definite pattern, and slowly evolve into artificial clouds. Of particular concern is that there are now so many – dozens every day are littering the skies.

..My major concern is that there is evidence that they are spraying tons of Nanosized Aluminum Compounds. It has been demonstrated in the scientific and medical literature that Nanosized Particles are infinitely more reactive and induce intense inflammation in a number of tissues. Of special concern is the effect of these nanoparticles on the brain and spinal cord, as a growing list of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s Dementia, Parkinson’s Disease, and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) are strongly related to exposure to environmental Aluminum.”

Nanoparticles of aluminum are not only infinitely more inflammatory, they also easily penetrate the brain by a number of routes, including the blood and olfactory nerves (the smell nerves in the nose). Studies have shown that these particles pass along the olfactory neural tracts, which connect directly to the area of the brain that is not only most affected by Alzheimer’s disease, but also the earliest affected in the course of the disease. It also has the highest level of brain aluminum in Alzheimer’s cases.

The intranasal route of exposure makes spraying of massive amounts of nanoaluminum into the skies especially hazardous, as it will be inhaled by people of all ages, including babies and small children for many hours. We know that older people have the greatest reaction to this airborne aluminum. Because of the nanosizing of the aluminum particles being used, home-filtering systems will not remove the aluminum, thus prolonging exposure, even indoors.

:”..In addition to inhaling nanoaluminum, such spraying will saturate the ground, water, and vegetation with high levels of aluminum. Normally, aluminum is poorly absorbed from the GI tract; but nanoaluminum is absorbed in much higher amounts. This absorbed aluminum has been shown to be distributed to a number of organs and tissues including the brain and spinal cord. Inhaling this environmentally suspended nanoaluminum will also produce tremendous inflammatory reaction within the lungs, which will pose a significant hazard to children and adults with asthma and pulmonary diseases.

I pray that the pilots who are spraying this dangerous substance fully understand that they are destroying the lives and health of their families as well. This is also true of our political officials. Once the soil, plants, and water sources are heavily contaminated there will be no way to reverse the damage that has been done.

Steps need to be taken now to prevent an impending health disaster of enormous proportions if this project is not stopped immediately. Otherwise we will see an explosive increase in neurodegenerative diseases occurring in adults and the elderly in unprecedented rates as well as neurodevelopmental disorders in our children. We are already seeing a dramatic increase in these neurological disorders and it is occurring in younger people more than ever before.

Source August 23, 2012


  1. Win-Shwe T-T, Fujimaki H, “Nanoparticles and Neurotoxicity,”In J Mol Sci2011;12:6267-6280.
  2. Krewski D et al., “The biological effects of nanoparticles. Risk assessment for aluminum, aluminum oxide, and aluminum hydroxide,”J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev2007;10 (suppl 1): 1-269.
  3. Blaylock RL, “Aluminum induced immunoexcitotoxicity in neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders,” Curr Inorg Chem2012;2:46-53.
  4. Tomljenovic L, “Aluminum and Alzheimer’s disease: after a century, is there a plausible link,”J Alzheimer’s Disease2011;23:567-598.
  5. Perl DP, Good PF, “Aluminum, Alzheimer’s Disease, and the olfactory system,”Ann NY Acad Sci1991;640:8-13.
  6. Shaw CA, Petrik MS, “Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration,”J Inorg Biochem2009;103:1555-1562.
  7. Braydich-Stolie LK et al., “Nanosized aluminum altered immune function,” ACS Nano 2010:4:3661-3670.
  8. Li XB et al., “Glia activation induced by peripheral administration of aluminum oxide nanoparticles in rat brains,”Nanomedicine2009;5:473-479.
  9. Exley C, House E, “Aluminum in the human brain,” Monatsh Chem 2011;142:357-363.

10.Nayak P, Chatterjee AK, “Effects of aluminum exposure on brain glutamate and GABA system: an experimental study in rats,” Food Chem Toxicol 2001;39:1285-1289.

  1. Tsunoda M, Sharma RP, “Modulation of tumor necrosis factor alpha expression in mouse brain after exposure to aluminum in drinking water,”Arch Toxicol1999;73:419-426.
  2. Matyja E, “Aluminum changes glutamate –mediated neurotoxicity in organotypic cultures of rat hippocampus,” Folia Neuropathol 2000;38:47-53.
  3. Walton JR, “Aluminum in hippocampal neurons from humans with Alzheimer’s disease,”Neurotoxicology2006;27:385-394.
  4. Walton JR, “An aluminum-based rat model for Alzheimer’s disease exhibits oxidative damage, inhibition of PP2A activity, hyperphosphorylated tau and granulovacuolar degeneration,”J Inorg Biochem2007;101:1275-1284.
  5. Becaria A et al., “Aluminum and copper in drinking water enhance inflammatory or oxidative events specifically in brain,”J Neuroimmunol2006;176:16-23.
  6. Exley C, “A molecular mechanism for aluminum-induced Alzheimer’s disease,” J Inorg Biochem 1999;76:133-140.
  7. Exley C, “The pro-oxidant activity of aluminum,”Free Rad Biol Med2004;36:380-387.

Scott Stevens is an award winning television weatherman who, a decade ago, began investigating the claims of Lt. Col Tom Bearden that North America was being subjected to full time weather modification.

During the course of that personal investigation he was the first on-air television weatherman to discover, through time-lapse photography, the primary reason for the now global chemtrail phenomena.

During Scott’s two decade television career he worked in Topeka Kansas, Omaha Nebraska, Tulsa Oklahoma, Albany New York and Pocatello Idaho.

Conference held: Sunday August 19, 2012



Excerpt from recent e-chats with retired Canadian Armed Forces captain Jerry Flynn who spent 22 of his 26 years in the military in the arcane fields of Electronic Warfare (EW) and Signals Intelligence (SIGINT). At the zenith of his career, he was the Executive Officer and Operations Officer at one of Canada’s largest and most sensitive intelligence-gathering stations, where for two years he directed some 200-plus specially-trained radio operators and technicians.

Jerry’s in his 80s and has been working full-time for 8 years warning people about the great dangers of wireless. See his great Powerpoint presentations: https://www.mediafire.com/folder/5xx5ag4x8jvxd/Powerpoint_presentations
In one of my slides it shows that frequencies between 1 GHz and 5 GHz are of most interest to the militaries for they penetrate more deeply all organ systems of the body and therefore put all organs at risk. These frequencies are especially harmful to the brain, central nervous system and immune system.


From a military perspective I can tell you that the most harmful modulations to use against humans – or any living thing – is pulsed, of which there are various kinds. AM or Amplitude Modulation too is harmful. The thing is, the human body, which is a vanishingly small teensie, weensie DC electrical system is easily shocked by each and every pulse or spike of AM signal. Think of these pulses/spikes being jackhammers. While the human immune systems recognizes these pulses as alien and tries to protect the body/brain against them, they body simply becomes too exhausted and can no longer fight off the pulses/spikes.


.Frequencies in the 1-5 GHz range are ‘carrier’ frequencies, not the ‘information carrying’ or modulation frequencies.


Frequencies in the 1-100 KHz range would be the modulated frequencies imposed upon the carrier frequencies. It is only when one appreciates the frequency of the human brain (0.5-30 Hz) and other organs of the body that one begins to understand how harmful ‘modulated’ frequencies in this range can be to humans. That’s why, for example, TETRA phones are so dangerous: their carrier frequencies are in the order of, typically, 400 MHz, but their modulation frequencies (which carry the ‘information’ are in or around 17 Hz, which is smack in the middle of a brain’s range of frequencies.


Were you able to view Amplitude Modulation on an oscilloscope, you’d see extremely sharp spikes of constantly varying heights, both above and below the centre or ‘carrier’ frequency). Let’s say your favourite AM station is AM 980, the 980 actually means 980 KHz (or thousands of hertz). Human ears cannot hear any of the AM carrier frequencies because they are too high for the human hear. Frequencies we hear are called Audio Frequencies, which run from about 10 Hz up to just 20 KHz. So, the carrier frequency, in this case, 980 Hz is modulated (or has had piggy-backed on top of it the audio frequencies your ears can hear, be it someone talking, singing, orchestras, whistling, etc.). Your table radio simply de-modulates the signal it receives, meaning it STRIPS away the AM ‘carrier’ frequency,  leaving only the AUDIO frequency which your ear can and does hear. The same principle applies to your FM radio band, only FM stands for Frequency Modulation and the frequencies shown on your radio (all of which are, again, simply carrier frequencies) run from 87.5 MHz to 106.5 MHz (M meaning mega or millions of hertz). FM modulation means that the carrier frequency’s shape is not altered in the vertical direction but in the horizontal direction, ie., much like an accordion squishes in and stretches out, if you know what I mean? In both AM and FM radio, your radio receiver removes or strips away the AM or FM frequencies to which your radio dial is tuned, leaving only the audio frequency that you can hear and listen to.

Link to the cell phone patents:

1) http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scalar_tech/esp_scalartech_cellphonesmicrowave09.htm
2) “Cell Phone Companies Patent Cancer Shields,” N. Fleming and I. Cobain, The Times, London, 06-11-2001.
3) http://www.leaflady.org/ElectroSmog.htm
4) http://www.dirtyelectricity.ca/autism_and_emf.htm
5) http://www.weepinitiative.org/LINKEDDOCS/scientific/20080117_bevington_emfs.pdf

Link to the CTIA (Wireless Association) 2010 quote about safety – http://ehtrust.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/has-the-fox-been-caught-in-the-henhouse/



In Canada, the medications must list the fact that rage or violence can be a negative reaction to the drugs. Not so in the US.

VIDEO: http://www.wbtv.com/story/25443655/uncommon-killers-david-crespi-and-david-carmichael



It was a story that shocked Charlotte, even the country.

David Crespi, a Charlotte-area banker, called 911 the morning of January 20, 2006 and told the operator he had killed his two twin five-year-old daughters. The moment his wife Kim heard the news she said it wasn’t him but drugs he’d been taking.

She knew he had in fact stabbed his daughters to death, he’d admitted to it.

But Kim believed from the second he confessed that her husband committed the crimes in a ‘medication induced psychosis’ from a cocktail of medications he’d recently been prescribed.

It was not a typical January day at the Crespi’s Matthews home.

David Crespi was home from his job at Wachovia because of a serious bought of depression and sleeplessness. He’d been to see his therapist with Kim several times in the weeks prior.

But just seven days before the killings David was prescribed a new drug for his depression, Prozac.

He also had in his system both Lunesta and Ambien to help him sleep and according to Kim Trazodone for anxiety.

She believes the combination of those drugs caused delusional thinking in David, even hallucinating. She maintains that ‘psychotic state’ as she calls it, is why David killed the girls.

When I asked Kim Crespi if she forgave David for killing Sam and Tess, she said he didn’t need her forgiveness. She says David, the man she loves dearly, didn’t commit the crimes, she believes it was that cocktail of drugs that was responsible.

“We all loved each other the minute before it happened, why wouldn’t we love each other now? I don’t think people want to hear that,” she told me.

David Crespi took a plea deal to avoid the death penalty; he’s servicing two life sentences.

In the chaos, as she describes the weeks after the murders, they did what lawyers told them. But Kim Crespi does not believe her husband should be in jail.

“The pharmaceutical companies are to blame. They know their drugs are capable of this and they’ve covered that up and that, to me is criminal,” she claims.

In 2011 the Food and Drug Administration increased the ‘black box warnings’ on SSRIs, or Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors to include stronger language about the possibility of increased suicidal thoughts for young adults during the initial use of the drug.

WEB EXTRA: FDA breakdown and study to support the decision to increase the warnings

But Kim Crespi believes the warnings on SSRIs should be stronger. Kim also feels patients and family members should be more aware of the potential side effects of the drugs and what signs of trouble to look out for.

In Canada they’ve increased the warnings on SSRIs. The agency, that’s the equivalent to the FDA here, recommended in 2004 SSRIs carry stronger warnings.

Here is an excerpt from the announcement, note what Health Canada says about the potential for patients to do harm to themselves and others.

OTTAWA – Health Canada is advising Canadians that all newer anti-depressant prescription drugs, known as Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) or Serotonin Noradrenalin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SNRIs), now carry stronger warnings. These new warnings indicate that patients of all ages taking these drugs may experience behavioural and/or emotional changes that may put them at increased risk of self-harm or harm to others.”

WEB EXTRA: Read the full announcement here

Kim Crespi has found support in a man named David Carmichael.

In 2004, Carmichael strangled his 11-year-old son Ian.

At the time he was taking Prozac. Carmichael had an old prescription for Paxil, and started medicating himself without the advice or supervision of his doctor.

He had only been on Paxil for a matter of days when he says he started having delusional thoughts about his son.

“I was psychotic. The issue was about what triggered the psychosis. These drugs, these SSRIs, can trigger acute psychosis and people should be aware of that,” he told me in an interview via satellite from Canada.

David Carmichael was found ‘not criminally responsible’ for Ian’s killing.

He spent time in a mental hospital after trial. The drug he blames, Paxil, was not brought up during case. But he believes it was the Paxil that created such horrific thoughts and actions against his precious young boy.

David has filed a civil suit against the makers of Paxil, GlaxoSmithKline. It’s in the discovery stages right now.

Back in Charlotte, Kim and her other kids have adjusted to what she calls the “new normal”.

They visit David once a week, and talk to him via collect calls most days.

She’s made it her mission to educate families about what she calls the power of prescription medications. She and a team are working on trying to get David a chance at freedom.

Kim and her family have a blog where they talk about the ‘tragedy’ as she calls it, that unfolded in their Matthews home. She uses it as a way to share their experience and hear from others.

These are two extreme cases, and in neither case did a court rule the killings were from “medication induced violence”.

In this country the latest numbers suggest one in ten people take anti-depressants. And for millions of Americans the drugs help them cope with the symptoms of depression.

I spoke with several mental health professionals, none of whom would go on camera for this story, but they said we must make it clear these cases are rare.

But most, including a pharmacist I spoke with, said people must be very aware of any changes in behavior when starting an SSRI.

I spoke with Bob Evans president of the Charlotte chapter of National of Alliance on Mental Illness.

He believes families should be very aware when a loved one is taking medication to treat mental illness. His organization provides support to families as well as patients. It’s a non-profit organization that has several programs aimed at educating people on all aspects of mental illness.

They are a good resource if you or someone you know needs help.

They suggest, like most organizations, if you think you might do harm to yourself or someone else, call 911 right away.

They also have a long list of other local agencies that help neighbors coping with and understanding mental illness.

Find the information here:  http://mhacentralcarolinas.org/countyandstateresources.cfm


Birds Adapting to Chernobyl’s Radiation

April 26, 2014 | by Janet Fang

photo credit: The hawfinch (Coccothraustes coccothraustes) is one of several bird species that appears to have adapted to radioactive conditions inside the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone / T.A. Mousseau and A.P. Møller, 2011

Share52.7K Tweet402 30 Reddit22 121


Nearly three decades since the disaster and it seems the birds living in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl are adapting to long-term radiation exposure. And some of them aren’t even just coping, they appear to be benefiting.

Ionizing radiation damages cells by producing reactive compounds called free radicals. The body protects itself using antioxidants, but if their levels are too low, then the radiation produces genetic damage and oxidative stress (when free radicals overwhelm the bodies defenses), leading to aging and death.

Previous studies of wildlife at Chernobyl showed that chronic radiation exposure depleted antioxidants and increased oxidative damage. “We found the opposite,” Ismael Galván of the Spanish National Research Council says in a news release.

Using mist nets, Galván and colleagues captured 152 birds from 16 different species at eight different sites inside or near the exclusion zone, an area that spans 30 kilometers in radius. Humans can’t live here, although the area has become somewhat of an accidental ecological experiment. (Pictured, mist nets strung along a pasture near the power plant.) The team measured the background radiation levels of each site — these ranged from 0.02 to 92.90 micro Sieverts per hour.

They took feather and blood samples from each bird before releasing them. In the blood samples, they measured levels of the antioxidant glutathione, oxidative stress, and DNA damage. With the feathers, they measured levels of melanin pigments. Eumelanin (black and brown) and pheomelanin (red and pink) are types of melanin. Because the production of the latter uses up antioxidants, animals who produce the most pheomelanins are likely to be more susceptible to the effects of ionizing radiation. They just don’t have enough antioxidants left over to fend off the free radicals.

The results reveal that with increasing background radiation, the birds’ overall body condition and antioxidant levels increased, while oxidative stress and DNA damage decreased.

However, birds who produce larger amounts of pheomelanin and lower amounts of eumelanin pay a cost: poorer body condition, decreased glutathione, and increased oxidative stress and DNA damage. The two negatively affected birds — the great tit (Parus major) and the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) — both produce large amounts of the pinkish pigment in their feathers.

Previous lab experiments have shown that, with prolonged exposure to low doses, humans and other animals can adapt to radiation. And that it increases resistance to larger, subsequent doses. This study shows the first evidence that animals in the wild can adapt to ionizing radiation

Here’s the entire list of all 16 birds surveyed were: red-backed shrike, great tit, barn swallow, wood warbler, blackcap, whitethroat, barred warbler, tree pipit, chaffinch, hawfinch, mistle thrush, song thrush, blackbird, black redstart, robin, and thrush nightingale.

The work was published in Functional Ecology this week.

[British Ecological Society via Science] Read more at http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/birds-adapting-chernobyls-radiation#G2dhkGSVI9juw1Ag.99





Replying to a consumer inquiry, 7th Generation Staff wrote:

“We do not use methylisothiazolinone in our disinfectant wipes. This is a preservative we use for most of our liquid products, however the powders will also be free of this.”


“Each of us was put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind. Did you think you were put here for something less?” Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Felicia N. Trujillo, ND

International FELDENKRAIS Assistant Trainer

DOCTORS W.A.R.N. (Wireless And Radiation Network)
PO Box 28068
Santa Fe, NM 87592-8068



“Politics–can’t live with ’em, can’t live without ’em.”
F. N. Trujillo

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com