MOBILE PHONES AND HEALTH EFFECTS - Emergency Campaign on Global Warming - Deceit, Danger Mark U.S. Pursuit of New WMD
EHS Solidarity with mid - August Human Rights and Mental Health fast protest in Pasadena,CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Klaus:
It seems so apt for me that this upcoming 16th August "Fast for Human Rights and Choice in Mental Health" protest is taking place in Pasadena, CA, a few minutes walking distance from the location where my life was turned upside down and in the process transformed me into a committed human rights activist against energy weapons, for medical recognition of EHS and most importantly for clarifying distinctions between EHS plus energy weapons bioeffects and "traditional" psychotic illnesses.
That pivotal event for me was as follows: I was shot awake in my former condo on Madison Av., Pasadena, at 11.30 P.M. on November 20th, 1996, and pinned to my bed while being assaulted with acoustic frequencies of such strength that my brain felt on fire. (Indeed, I have frequently compared the grotesque sensation of having my brain fried that November night in Pasadena to a New Scientist description of how cancerous tumours are treated: "A very high-frequency current in the wires causes nearby atoms to vibrate heating the tissue from within just as a microwave cooker heats food." New Scientist, 10 Oct., '98, p. 24).
My bed was beside and parallel to a non-structural wall which separated my room from my Cal tech, (newly graduated in aeronautic engineering) renter’s bedroom which he had moved into a few weeks previously. Once the energy charge was turned off (this could have been just a few minutes duration), I was able to move but the tinnitus was so excruciating I had to sleep beside running water and high and low frequencies bombarded me frequently night and day.
In the weeks leading up to the assault, I had been outspoken about the abuse of energy weapons and a mere ten days or so earlier I had faxed a letter on this subject to the George Soros New York based Human Rights Foundation. I had never previously, nor have I ever since, experienced that oven-roasting of my brain that I endured during the assault of 20th November 1996. My rentor was forcibly moved to the status of being my former rentor within forty eight hours. No one else was living in my condo at that time and he kept considerable engineering equipment in his room.
Below is the text of the letter I wrote to Huntington Memorial Hospital, Pasadena, c. two weeks following the assault. (I have the original in my possession.) In it I described my experience as "brainblasting." I used that word because it felt like the brainblasting Alex. Constantine describes in his "Pscyhic Dictatorship in the U.S.A." - a book I had been reading in the weeks preceding Nov. 20, 1996.
------------------------------
266 S. Pasadena Ave., No. 201
Pasadena, CA 91101
818-792-7122
December 6, 1996
To:
Huntington Memorial Hospital
Emergency Department
100 West California Boulevard
Pasadena, CA 91105
Dear Medical Staff:
I am writing to thank you for your medical assistance following the severe brain blasting assault I sustained on the night of November 20, 1996. (I sustained minor attacks of a similar nature for circa two weeks subsequent to the November 20 onslaught, but the one that night was close to fatal.)
I am enclosing some documentation for you to alert you to the possibility of other victims arriving for assistance at your emergency facility with symptoms similar to mine.
The public and medical personnel may not be, as yet, well-informed to the dangers of these forms of assault and the symptoms can easily be misdiagnosed. Using non-lethal weapons against innocent victims is the dark, brutal side of contemporary technology. And brain blasting is but one of these.
I feel the medical community must be alerted to these types of assault so that victims can be diagnosed and treated effectively. Being uninformed in high technology and medicine I cannot be of any assistance. My contribution as a person with a strong social conscience is to alert you to this public hazard and submit to you some documentation on my assault. I do not know what long term brain damage I may have sustained from this.
Sincerely,
Imelda O’Connor, Ph.D.
c.c.’d as necessary
---------------------------------
Well, I now know that brain seizures and other EHS disabilities that make it impossible to work within a normal e-environment or to enjoy normal leisure activities such as T.V. viewing, films, etc., have followed in the wake of that November 20, 1996 assault!
In mid-December 1996, as my symptoms were still very severe, I decided to return to Ireland for EHS treatment. The medical doctor I attended in Cork thought I was hallucinating about the November 20th assault and I was tricked into a psychiatric unit, misdiagnosed there by the medical attendants and forced to take psychotropic drugs to which I had a terrible reaction. (I think a number of your readers Klaus already know about my EHS condition, being misdiagnosed as psychotic, my subsequent futile search for legal help here in Ireland to bring a medical negligence case against them and the progress of my own self-litigation, so won’t repeat.)
>From Spring 1998 I started again being outspoken about abuses by energy weapons and forwarded my own experience to various Human Rights organisations and politicians, etc. And then . . . the energy based assaults on me began again! One night in particular stands out. And interestingly, its date in mid-summer 1999 happened to closely coincide with the arrival of my personal data on energy assaults and related information, in Brussels, submitted to the EU officials there on my behalf by my local MEP (Member of European Parliament).
I was asleep when shot awake by a forceful gush of energy (similar to an air-pump levelled at one's ears) through my aural tract that sent a violent shock throughout my brain. This was followed by a strong sensation of being thumped in the head. Then some hours later, c. 300 A.M. when I had just about fallen asleep again, another inward surge of air raced through my ears and this time a shock was sent down my entire right side. The following day, a Cork based radiologist whom I consulted urgently for advise on how I could protect myself during such assaults suggested I wear a thick aluminium helmet while asleep.
In fact, I was gravely endangered every night for a couple of hours, for c. six months during 1999 (c. May to November) by some acoustic based frequency weapon that would rev in through my ears, take hold of my entire body, get my heart to sway in a wave-like motion and almost knocked me unconscious with the sheer power of that sound. Within seconds of it starting up, I would have bowel evacuation and could feel my entire body tingling with electricity.
Even when I stayed some nights with relatives in two different areas some hours by car from Cork, that acoustic "assault" would still take place. I reported it many times to the local police where I live in Cork, (especially during the attacks I’d telephone, because these acoustic assaults were so ferocious in strength, I felt it was touch-and-go whether I would actually survive each one).
Below I will quote an excerpt from a letter I wrote to another EHS person describing these assaults:
----------------------
"...starting at 11.00 P.M. last night, I experienced such a severe assault that my heart-beat started going arrythmic, and I got a severe sick stomach. I got up and ran water vigorously at sink: a technique I've found somewhat soothing and counteractive since that first assault on November 20th, 1996. The entire lasted c. an hour and a half, and, as usual, I woke up this morning, as if nothing had happened! (Or, rather, close to nothing--after all, I had to extract myself from all that aluminium garb, remove ear plugs, etc., and tolerate yet another day with a chronically heightened response to our electromagnetic environment). But the severe attacks I experience are solely at night, and they start either on the hour or half-hour. The usual time they last is an hour, an hour and a half, or two; on the odd occasion, three.
There is a major difference between these "assaults" and the discomfort from proximity to other ionised and non-ionised radiative sources that I have developed since November 20th, 1996.
First, I experience them only at night. Second, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 an aquatic belly-up, the discomfort I experience, during the day, from electromagnetic sensitivity is rarely above a 5--maybe a 6. During these nocturnal assaults the bio-effects I feel accelerate past 8 and to a 9, when very severe.
Last night was a 9. Now, the earplugs, with water tape gurgling water through my head, still helped an awful lot, last night, but the radiation had its other (although for it, less satisfactory, I hope) route through that major external organ: my skin. Of course, I downed a tranquilliser immediately when it started; my purpose is less the severity of an
electric-pole-blasting-through-my-head (= tinnitus), than the all important factor of keeping my heart steadily tick-tocking, while the "assault" lasts. I can feel, during such severe attacks (whether in actuality of not, it feels so) the radiation trying to attack me from within, and I can cope with the discomfort of a sick stomach (I don't feel this is essentially dangerous), but I must protect my heart from being knocked out of action, at all costs.
(The declasssified DIA documents, "Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation--Radiowaves and Microwaves--in Eurasian Communist Countries", that refer to research in this field, way back two decades ago, documenting detailed lab observed bio-effects of radiowaves and microwaves, includes a subsection on their activation of cardiac arrythmias and another on their capacity to cause heart seizure. See reproduced DIA documents, in appendices of Tim Rifat's REMOTE VIEWING, 1999, pp. 415, 431.
Reading other sections of these documents also helped me understand why my circulation was being malignantly affected--and resulting, on occasion, in numbed/lifeless hands or/and feet and crown of head--during severe attacks.)
By the way, I'll state again that I am basically a very healthy, strong, fit person, who walks c. 4-6 miles daily. Neither am I of a particularly nervous disposition; in fact, I have faced many a dangerous situation, in the past, that most would have run a mile from. I'm saying this, not to boast in any way, but to point out to you that I am not imagining any of this stuff..."
--------------------------
I feel this upcoming "Fast for Human Rights and Choice in Mental Health" in Pasadena by these very brave protestors is a perfect time for us to show solidarity with them.
Recently you posted an email from a Canadian EHS supporter who pointed out that the favoured medical treatment for schizophrenia, where he lives, is the application of specific frequencies--energy medicine.
We must highlight/expose the schizophrenic like effects victims of EMR/frequency weapons experience and how the medical community - particularly mental health specialists-- must be made aware of the proliferation of energy weapons in use now and what bio-effects they
can produce in victims who come to them for the right type of help.
So far, as we too well know, the medical community being blind to the dark brutal side of technology is blundering hopelessly, and EMR targeted victims - plus, of course, EHS sufferers who may not be specifically targeted-- are just locked up or/and prescribed psychotropic drugs that greatly deteriorates their condition. And makes them feel more
hopeless than ever.
So, let’s get going on strategies to help make this fast a global one that will highlight the current medical tragedy of EHS sufferers being considered delusional about their symptoms and that the bio-effects they claim from EMR sources are pronounced by all governments to be merely psychological/psychiatric--which means, in other words, that EHS is just another manifestation of mental illness.
We can also propel the evils of EMR targeting and bio-effects right onto everyone’s radar.
My posting on the frequency of misdiagnosing EHS as Schizophrenia is all over the net! Just google: EHS and schizophrenia. You have it posted Klaus on C.I.O. dated 19/9/02.
Best, Imelda, Cork, Ireland
--------
Dr Peter French (Submission to Senate Inquiry, 2001)
---------------------------------------------------
MOBILE PHONES AND HEALTH EFFECTS
(Submission to Senate Inquiry, 2001)
By Dr Peter French
In considering this issue, there are four key papers that I wish to highlight for their unique insights into the critical facets of the subject.
A. Theory of the mechanism of action.
The attached paper (which is in press in the Journal of Theoretical Biology) by Laurence et al proposes a mechanism by which pulsed radiofrequency fields such as those used by mobile phones could exert a biological effect. In brief, the paper postulates that the pulsed exposure can cause a shape change in key regulatory protein molecules in cells which can lead to a change in function of the protein, and therefore an alteration in key cellular processes, such as signal transduction, gene expression and cell growth. The exposure does this through the delivery of a pulse of energy which is absorbed by the target tissue. This pulse of energy would therefore act as a 'stress' imposed on the cell, in the same way as heat, some chemicals, cold shock and osmotic shock do. If this mechanism is correct, several important implications result.
Firstly, cells and tissues respond to such an imposed stress by making stress or 'heat shock' proteins to protect the proteins from undergoing change of shape.
Secondly, the degree of protein shape change determines the threshold of heat shock response. Therefore, if an imposed RF field was powerful enough to change the shape of a key protein in a way which altered its function BUT did NOT change it sufficiently to invoke the heat shock protein response, the biological effect would occur without defence. As the power is turned up, the degree of alteration of protein shape would become sufficient to both alter its function AND its shape sufficiently to activate the heat shock response, which would effectively negate or control the RF shock. This can therefore explain the 'window' effect reported in many RF experiments (eg French et al).
B. Biological Evidence for this theory.
A recent publication by de Pomerai et al ('Non-thermal heat-shock response to microwaves'. Nature 405: 417-418, 2000) provides evidence to support the above hypothesis. They report that nematode worms subjected to continuous wave RF energy at 750MHz respond by turning on the heat shock response Importantly, they report this effect occurring at an SAR (specific absorption rate) of 0.001 W/kg, which is 100 - 1000 fold LESS than current digital phones emit. This paper therefore pushes back the limits of exposure considerably. If biological effects occur at this level, does this imply effects at the whole animal/person level? The answer is it does, and there is evidence that it occurs.
C. Experiments in Animals
An Australian study published in 1997 (Repacholi, M. et al., 1997. "Lymphomas in Em-Pim1 Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900MHz Electromagnetic Fields." Radiation Research 147: 631-640) reported that the incidence of lymphoma was significantly increased in transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields. The aim of this study was to determine whether long term exposure to pulse-modulated RF fields (selected specifically to correspond to those from mobile phone handsets) would increase the incidence of lymphoma in transgenic mice. The Em-Pim1 system was chosen because although the mice are moderately predisposed to develop lymphoma spontaneously, for them to acquire malignancy the cells must undergo further mutagenic events in existing genes. Pim1 mice "...would be expected to respond to carcinogenic agents with an increase in lymphomas because (they) express an activated oncogene selectively in the lymphoid cells." The advantage of this system is that it is highly sensitive to mutagenic or carcinogenic influences.
The result of exposure of the mice under very carefully controlled and characterised conditions was a 2.4 fold increase in the risk of developing lymphoma associated with the exposure. This was highly statistically significant (the statistical probability that the result was due to chance was less than 1%). Furthermore, the lymphomas developed much earlier in the exposed group than in the unexposed (control) group.
The authors emphasise the contradictory results and uncertain conclusions which exist in the scientific literature regarding the non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields. The authors clearly do not regard RF as being able to directly induce mutations or activate genes, so they presumably do not regard RF as a potential carcinogen, even though by their definition in this system it could be regarded as such. Rather they hypothesise that the effect of the exposure is to induce a "transient low level warming of exposed tissues" which leads to increased cell proliferation and therefore to a greater probability of spontaneous lymphomas arising. Is this mechanism feasible? The authors comment on the subject of heating as follows: "Under the conditions used...the thermal load induced in an exposed mouse would have been small relative to the heat generated by normal metabolic activity". It therefore seems unlikely that such a small heat load could induce increased cell proliferation. However, it is possible that the RF field may act to induce an increase in cell proliferation by some other mechanism, as has been reported for RF frequencies in lymphocyte cultures. It is also possible that RF exposure may induce the increased expression of an oncogene such as c-fos or c-jun, as has been shown by other workers for extremely low frequency fields.
It is true that this study does not imply that there is an increased risk to humans of lymphoma induced by mobile phone exposure. It may indicate however that in individuals genetically predisposed to certain forms of cancer, the long term intermittent exposure to RF such as that used in mobile phone technology may be an important environmental stimulus in the induction of malignancy, by an as yet unknown mechanism.
Whilst it is true that there may be a difference between mice and humans in the way they absorb the radiation, this study cannot be dismissed in terms of "it utilised mice therefore it is not relevant to humans". In some cases it is true that mice represent an entirely different biological system to humans, whereas in other cases they are an excellent surrogate for human experiments. In support of the latter cases it should be noted that Australia's 1998 winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine, Prof. Peter Doherty, was awarded the Nobel prize for his work in the immune system using mice. His findings are directly applicable to human biology.
D. Experiments in humans
A recent study in humans looked at patterns of brain waves of people using a mobile phone operating at 902MHz whilst performing a memory task, and comparing the results to no mobile phone use. They concluded that "the exposure of EMF does not alter the resting EEG per se but modifies the brain responses significantly during a memory task" (Krause CM et al, 2000.
'Effects of electromagnetic field emitted by cellular phones on the EEG during a memory task.' Cognitive Neuroscience 11: 761-764). They concluded that GSM phones have effects on brain electric oscillations in the 4-12 Hz frequency band range particular during memory retrieval processing. The authors propose that the mechanism my be via 'mild temperature changes' in the cortex, and were unable to comment on long-term effects of mobile phone use on cognition. This is not the only study to have shown such effects, and as such it seems that there is a strong likelihood of an effect on neurological processing. This has implications throughout the community, and in particular calls into question the use of mobile phones by children.
Conclusion
Each of these four papers provides an important insight into our thinking on this issue. We can conclude:
1. That the mechanism of biological (and therefore physiological) effect can be explained in terms of orthodox physical and biological data.
2. That the mechanism rules out a simple 'dose-response' curve as the appropriate measure to validate research reports.
3. That the Australian and International Standards do not cope with the reported effects at SARs of 0.001 W/kg, nor with the reported cognitive effects reported for mobile phone users.
4. That the data provides evidence of effects at the cellular, organism, animal and human level of exposures conducted at mobile phone relevant frequency and power.
Informant: Robert Riedlinger
--------
Deceit, Danger Mark U.S. Pursuit of New WMD
http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.weapons29jul29,0,3489796.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
Informant: edandbunkie
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Klaus:
It seems so apt for me that this upcoming 16th August "Fast for Human Rights and Choice in Mental Health" protest is taking place in Pasadena, CA, a few minutes walking distance from the location where my life was turned upside down and in the process transformed me into a committed human rights activist against energy weapons, for medical recognition of EHS and most importantly for clarifying distinctions between EHS plus energy weapons bioeffects and "traditional" psychotic illnesses.
That pivotal event for me was as follows: I was shot awake in my former condo on Madison Av., Pasadena, at 11.30 P.M. on November 20th, 1996, and pinned to my bed while being assaulted with acoustic frequencies of such strength that my brain felt on fire. (Indeed, I have frequently compared the grotesque sensation of having my brain fried that November night in Pasadena to a New Scientist description of how cancerous tumours are treated: "A very high-frequency current in the wires causes nearby atoms to vibrate heating the tissue from within just as a microwave cooker heats food." New Scientist, 10 Oct., '98, p. 24).
My bed was beside and parallel to a non-structural wall which separated my room from my Cal tech, (newly graduated in aeronautic engineering) renter’s bedroom which he had moved into a few weeks previously. Once the energy charge was turned off (this could have been just a few minutes duration), I was able to move but the tinnitus was so excruciating I had to sleep beside running water and high and low frequencies bombarded me frequently night and day.
In the weeks leading up to the assault, I had been outspoken about the abuse of energy weapons and a mere ten days or so earlier I had faxed a letter on this subject to the George Soros New York based Human Rights Foundation. I had never previously, nor have I ever since, experienced that oven-roasting of my brain that I endured during the assault of 20th November 1996. My rentor was forcibly moved to the status of being my former rentor within forty eight hours. No one else was living in my condo at that time and he kept considerable engineering equipment in his room.
Below is the text of the letter I wrote to Huntington Memorial Hospital, Pasadena, c. two weeks following the assault. (I have the original in my possession.) In it I described my experience as "brainblasting." I used that word because it felt like the brainblasting Alex. Constantine describes in his "Pscyhic Dictatorship in the U.S.A." - a book I had been reading in the weeks preceding Nov. 20, 1996.
------------------------------
266 S. Pasadena Ave., No. 201
Pasadena, CA 91101
818-792-7122
December 6, 1996
To:
Huntington Memorial Hospital
Emergency Department
100 West California Boulevard
Pasadena, CA 91105
Dear Medical Staff:
I am writing to thank you for your medical assistance following the severe brain blasting assault I sustained on the night of November 20, 1996. (I sustained minor attacks of a similar nature for circa two weeks subsequent to the November 20 onslaught, but the one that night was close to fatal.)
I am enclosing some documentation for you to alert you to the possibility of other victims arriving for assistance at your emergency facility with symptoms similar to mine.
The public and medical personnel may not be, as yet, well-informed to the dangers of these forms of assault and the symptoms can easily be misdiagnosed. Using non-lethal weapons against innocent victims is the dark, brutal side of contemporary technology. And brain blasting is but one of these.
I feel the medical community must be alerted to these types of assault so that victims can be diagnosed and treated effectively. Being uninformed in high technology and medicine I cannot be of any assistance. My contribution as a person with a strong social conscience is to alert you to this public hazard and submit to you some documentation on my assault. I do not know what long term brain damage I may have sustained from this.
Sincerely,
Imelda O’Connor, Ph.D.
c.c.’d as necessary
---------------------------------
Well, I now know that brain seizures and other EHS disabilities that make it impossible to work within a normal e-environment or to enjoy normal leisure activities such as T.V. viewing, films, etc., have followed in the wake of that November 20, 1996 assault!
In mid-December 1996, as my symptoms were still very severe, I decided to return to Ireland for EHS treatment. The medical doctor I attended in Cork thought I was hallucinating about the November 20th assault and I was tricked into a psychiatric unit, misdiagnosed there by the medical attendants and forced to take psychotropic drugs to which I had a terrible reaction. (I think a number of your readers Klaus already know about my EHS condition, being misdiagnosed as psychotic, my subsequent futile search for legal help here in Ireland to bring a medical negligence case against them and the progress of my own self-litigation, so won’t repeat.)
>From Spring 1998 I started again being outspoken about abuses by energy weapons and forwarded my own experience to various Human Rights organisations and politicians, etc. And then . . . the energy based assaults on me began again! One night in particular stands out. And interestingly, its date in mid-summer 1999 happened to closely coincide with the arrival of my personal data on energy assaults and related information, in Brussels, submitted to the EU officials there on my behalf by my local MEP (Member of European Parliament).
I was asleep when shot awake by a forceful gush of energy (similar to an air-pump levelled at one's ears) through my aural tract that sent a violent shock throughout my brain. This was followed by a strong sensation of being thumped in the head. Then some hours later, c. 300 A.M. when I had just about fallen asleep again, another inward surge of air raced through my ears and this time a shock was sent down my entire right side. The following day, a Cork based radiologist whom I consulted urgently for advise on how I could protect myself during such assaults suggested I wear a thick aluminium helmet while asleep.
In fact, I was gravely endangered every night for a couple of hours, for c. six months during 1999 (c. May to November) by some acoustic based frequency weapon that would rev in through my ears, take hold of my entire body, get my heart to sway in a wave-like motion and almost knocked me unconscious with the sheer power of that sound. Within seconds of it starting up, I would have bowel evacuation and could feel my entire body tingling with electricity.
Even when I stayed some nights with relatives in two different areas some hours by car from Cork, that acoustic "assault" would still take place. I reported it many times to the local police where I live in Cork, (especially during the attacks I’d telephone, because these acoustic assaults were so ferocious in strength, I felt it was touch-and-go whether I would actually survive each one).
Below I will quote an excerpt from a letter I wrote to another EHS person describing these assaults:
----------------------
"...starting at 11.00 P.M. last night, I experienced such a severe assault that my heart-beat started going arrythmic, and I got a severe sick stomach. I got up and ran water vigorously at sink: a technique I've found somewhat soothing and counteractive since that first assault on November 20th, 1996. The entire lasted c. an hour and a half, and, as usual, I woke up this morning, as if nothing had happened! (Or, rather, close to nothing--after all, I had to extract myself from all that aluminium garb, remove ear plugs, etc., and tolerate yet another day with a chronically heightened response to our electromagnetic environment). But the severe attacks I experience are solely at night, and they start either on the hour or half-hour. The usual time they last is an hour, an hour and a half, or two; on the odd occasion, three.
There is a major difference between these "assaults" and the discomfort from proximity to other ionised and non-ionised radiative sources that I have developed since November 20th, 1996.
First, I experience them only at night. Second, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 an aquatic belly-up, the discomfort I experience, during the day, from electromagnetic sensitivity is rarely above a 5--maybe a 6. During these nocturnal assaults the bio-effects I feel accelerate past 8 and to a 9, when very severe.
Last night was a 9. Now, the earplugs, with water tape gurgling water through my head, still helped an awful lot, last night, but the radiation had its other (although for it, less satisfactory, I hope) route through that major external organ: my skin. Of course, I downed a tranquilliser immediately when it started; my purpose is less the severity of an
electric-pole-blasting-through-my-head (= tinnitus), than the all important factor of keeping my heart steadily tick-tocking, while the "assault" lasts. I can feel, during such severe attacks (whether in actuality of not, it feels so) the radiation trying to attack me from within, and I can cope with the discomfort of a sick stomach (I don't feel this is essentially dangerous), but I must protect my heart from being knocked out of action, at all costs.
(The declasssified DIA documents, "Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation--Radiowaves and Microwaves--in Eurasian Communist Countries", that refer to research in this field, way back two decades ago, documenting detailed lab observed bio-effects of radiowaves and microwaves, includes a subsection on their activation of cardiac arrythmias and another on their capacity to cause heart seizure. See reproduced DIA documents, in appendices of Tim Rifat's REMOTE VIEWING, 1999, pp. 415, 431.
Reading other sections of these documents also helped me understand why my circulation was being malignantly affected--and resulting, on occasion, in numbed/lifeless hands or/and feet and crown of head--during severe attacks.)
By the way, I'll state again that I am basically a very healthy, strong, fit person, who walks c. 4-6 miles daily. Neither am I of a particularly nervous disposition; in fact, I have faced many a dangerous situation, in the past, that most would have run a mile from. I'm saying this, not to boast in any way, but to point out to you that I am not imagining any of this stuff..."
--------------------------
I feel this upcoming "Fast for Human Rights and Choice in Mental Health" in Pasadena by these very brave protestors is a perfect time for us to show solidarity with them.
Recently you posted an email from a Canadian EHS supporter who pointed out that the favoured medical treatment for schizophrenia, where he lives, is the application of specific frequencies--energy medicine.
We must highlight/expose the schizophrenic like effects victims of EMR/frequency weapons experience and how the medical community - particularly mental health specialists-- must be made aware of the proliferation of energy weapons in use now and what bio-effects they
can produce in victims who come to them for the right type of help.
So far, as we too well know, the medical community being blind to the dark brutal side of technology is blundering hopelessly, and EMR targeted victims - plus, of course, EHS sufferers who may not be specifically targeted-- are just locked up or/and prescribed psychotropic drugs that greatly deteriorates their condition. And makes them feel more
hopeless than ever.
So, let’s get going on strategies to help make this fast a global one that will highlight the current medical tragedy of EHS sufferers being considered delusional about their symptoms and that the bio-effects they claim from EMR sources are pronounced by all governments to be merely psychological/psychiatric--which means, in other words, that EHS is just another manifestation of mental illness.
We can also propel the evils of EMR targeting and bio-effects right onto everyone’s radar.
My posting on the frequency of misdiagnosing EHS as Schizophrenia is all over the net! Just google: EHS and schizophrenia. You have it posted Klaus on C.I.O. dated 19/9/02.
Best, Imelda, Cork, Ireland
--------
Dr Peter French (Submission to Senate Inquiry, 2001)
---------------------------------------------------
MOBILE PHONES AND HEALTH EFFECTS
(Submission to Senate Inquiry, 2001)
By Dr Peter French
In considering this issue, there are four key papers that I wish to highlight for their unique insights into the critical facets of the subject.
A. Theory of the mechanism of action.
The attached paper (which is in press in the Journal of Theoretical Biology) by Laurence et al proposes a mechanism by which pulsed radiofrequency fields such as those used by mobile phones could exert a biological effect. In brief, the paper postulates that the pulsed exposure can cause a shape change in key regulatory protein molecules in cells which can lead to a change in function of the protein, and therefore an alteration in key cellular processes, such as signal transduction, gene expression and cell growth. The exposure does this through the delivery of a pulse of energy which is absorbed by the target tissue. This pulse of energy would therefore act as a 'stress' imposed on the cell, in the same way as heat, some chemicals, cold shock and osmotic shock do. If this mechanism is correct, several important implications result.
Firstly, cells and tissues respond to such an imposed stress by making stress or 'heat shock' proteins to protect the proteins from undergoing change of shape.
Secondly, the degree of protein shape change determines the threshold of heat shock response. Therefore, if an imposed RF field was powerful enough to change the shape of a key protein in a way which altered its function BUT did NOT change it sufficiently to invoke the heat shock protein response, the biological effect would occur without defence. As the power is turned up, the degree of alteration of protein shape would become sufficient to both alter its function AND its shape sufficiently to activate the heat shock response, which would effectively negate or control the RF shock. This can therefore explain the 'window' effect reported in many RF experiments (eg French et al).
B. Biological Evidence for this theory.
A recent publication by de Pomerai et al ('Non-thermal heat-shock response to microwaves'. Nature 405: 417-418, 2000) provides evidence to support the above hypothesis. They report that nematode worms subjected to continuous wave RF energy at 750MHz respond by turning on the heat shock response Importantly, they report this effect occurring at an SAR (specific absorption rate) of 0.001 W/kg, which is 100 - 1000 fold LESS than current digital phones emit. This paper therefore pushes back the limits of exposure considerably. If biological effects occur at this level, does this imply effects at the whole animal/person level? The answer is it does, and there is evidence that it occurs.
C. Experiments in Animals
An Australian study published in 1997 (Repacholi, M. et al., 1997. "Lymphomas in Em-Pim1 Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900MHz Electromagnetic Fields." Radiation Research 147: 631-640) reported that the incidence of lymphoma was significantly increased in transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields. The aim of this study was to determine whether long term exposure to pulse-modulated RF fields (selected specifically to correspond to those from mobile phone handsets) would increase the incidence of lymphoma in transgenic mice. The Em-Pim1 system was chosen because although the mice are moderately predisposed to develop lymphoma spontaneously, for them to acquire malignancy the cells must undergo further mutagenic events in existing genes. Pim1 mice "...would be expected to respond to carcinogenic agents with an increase in lymphomas because (they) express an activated oncogene selectively in the lymphoid cells." The advantage of this system is that it is highly sensitive to mutagenic or carcinogenic influences.
The result of exposure of the mice under very carefully controlled and characterised conditions was a 2.4 fold increase in the risk of developing lymphoma associated with the exposure. This was highly statistically significant (the statistical probability that the result was due to chance was less than 1%). Furthermore, the lymphomas developed much earlier in the exposed group than in the unexposed (control) group.
The authors emphasise the contradictory results and uncertain conclusions which exist in the scientific literature regarding the non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields. The authors clearly do not regard RF as being able to directly induce mutations or activate genes, so they presumably do not regard RF as a potential carcinogen, even though by their definition in this system it could be regarded as such. Rather they hypothesise that the effect of the exposure is to induce a "transient low level warming of exposed tissues" which leads to increased cell proliferation and therefore to a greater probability of spontaneous lymphomas arising. Is this mechanism feasible? The authors comment on the subject of heating as follows: "Under the conditions used...the thermal load induced in an exposed mouse would have been small relative to the heat generated by normal metabolic activity". It therefore seems unlikely that such a small heat load could induce increased cell proliferation. However, it is possible that the RF field may act to induce an increase in cell proliferation by some other mechanism, as has been reported for RF frequencies in lymphocyte cultures. It is also possible that RF exposure may induce the increased expression of an oncogene such as c-fos or c-jun, as has been shown by other workers for extremely low frequency fields.
It is true that this study does not imply that there is an increased risk to humans of lymphoma induced by mobile phone exposure. It may indicate however that in individuals genetically predisposed to certain forms of cancer, the long term intermittent exposure to RF such as that used in mobile phone technology may be an important environmental stimulus in the induction of malignancy, by an as yet unknown mechanism.
Whilst it is true that there may be a difference between mice and humans in the way they absorb the radiation, this study cannot be dismissed in terms of "it utilised mice therefore it is not relevant to humans". In some cases it is true that mice represent an entirely different biological system to humans, whereas in other cases they are an excellent surrogate for human experiments. In support of the latter cases it should be noted that Australia's 1998 winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine, Prof. Peter Doherty, was awarded the Nobel prize for his work in the immune system using mice. His findings are directly applicable to human biology.
D. Experiments in humans
A recent study in humans looked at patterns of brain waves of people using a mobile phone operating at 902MHz whilst performing a memory task, and comparing the results to no mobile phone use. They concluded that "the exposure of EMF does not alter the resting EEG per se but modifies the brain responses significantly during a memory task" (Krause CM et al, 2000.
'Effects of electromagnetic field emitted by cellular phones on the EEG during a memory task.' Cognitive Neuroscience 11: 761-764). They concluded that GSM phones have effects on brain electric oscillations in the 4-12 Hz frequency band range particular during memory retrieval processing. The authors propose that the mechanism my be via 'mild temperature changes' in the cortex, and were unable to comment on long-term effects of mobile phone use on cognition. This is not the only study to have shown such effects, and as such it seems that there is a strong likelihood of an effect on neurological processing. This has implications throughout the community, and in particular calls into question the use of mobile phones by children.
Conclusion
Each of these four papers provides an important insight into our thinking on this issue. We can conclude:
1. That the mechanism of biological (and therefore physiological) effect can be explained in terms of orthodox physical and biological data.
2. That the mechanism rules out a simple 'dose-response' curve as the appropriate measure to validate research reports.
3. That the Australian and International Standards do not cope with the reported effects at SARs of 0.001 W/kg, nor with the reported cognitive effects reported for mobile phone users.
4. That the data provides evidence of effects at the cellular, organism, animal and human level of exposures conducted at mobile phone relevant frequency and power.
Informant: Robert Riedlinger
--------
Deceit, Danger Mark U.S. Pursuit of New WMD
http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.weapons29jul29,0,3489796.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines Informant: edandbunkie
Homepage:
