Just Say No to Big Brother’s Smart Meters by Orlean Koehle


“precautionary principle” and not put something on the market until it is truly well tested. He does not believe that has happened. We need public ed campaigns to warn the public of the dangers. 2. Dr. Moskowitz also believes all mobile phones (not just cell phones) give increased risk for developing brain tumors, but we are not being given the truth about that risk. He reported of a study of 38,000 participants. Supposedly, the results were that “overall there was no association between mobile phone use and the risk of tumors.” However, the study was a little biased and did not meet “scientific best practices.” It was funded by the World Health Organization and the mobile phone industry. He showed a study with graphs. After a ten year period of mobile phone use, there were 2 times the number of brain tumors. The longer the duration and the heavier the use of mobile phones all give higher numbers of tumors. Heavy use of cell phones gives 82% higher risk of brain tumors. We do not hear of this because the mobile phone industry has buried the studies. They dismiss the tables. Moskowitz also believes EMF is harmful to the developing reproductive organs of children. Two-thirds of children over age 7 are using cell phones for an average of 2.5 hours per week. There are now 293 million Americans that have cell phones.


We are likely to see a higher


number of brain tumors with such high numbers of people using cell phones. Yet, the FDA, in May of 1010, in a national study said “there is no risk.” We need better safety standards with cell phone health hazards and radiation levels posted on the package of the cell phone or mobile phone at the time of purchase. The label should read, “warning, possible health risks associated with the use of this product: headaches, impaired immune system, tumors of hearing nerves, blood in brain barrier, brain cancer, reduced melatonin, genetic damage, interference with pace maker, eye problems, pressure or tingling in the head, etc.” It is our right as the consumer to know about these risks. Dr. Moskowitz handed out copies of an article he had written that was published in the San Francisco Chronicle, April 28, 2010, Open Forum section, p. A-14. The article was entitled, “Government must inform us of cell phone risk.” It tells how the wireless industry vigorously opposes any legislation that would demand that people should know how much radiation the cell phone or mobile phone emits. The industry argues that their phones comply with regulations, and there is no consensus about risks so people don’t need to know about them. The article asks the question “Do federal regulations adequately protect the public? Moskowitz believes the answer is definitely no. The FCC regulations are from 1996 and are based on the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a measure of heat generated by six minutes of cell phone exposure in an artificial model that represents a 200-pound man’s brain. Every cell phone model is mandated to state what the SAR is, but most manufacturers bury that somewhere in the homeowner’s manual, along with safety instructions to keep the phone at least an inch away from your body. Most people are clueless what SAR means and just ignore it if they do see it written. Moskowitz further argues, “Moreover, children and adults who weigh less than 200 pounds, are exposed to more radiation than our government deems ‘safe.’” Moskowitz states that laboratory scientists have found harmful effects from cell phones that


emit less radiation than the FCC allows. Some scientists believe that the heat transfer is not what we should fear most. They have found the variation in the frequencies emitted by cell phones may be most hazardous. Nine other nations now have laws that mandate cell phone manufacturers to issue precautionary warnings on their phones. Moskowitz strongly believes our nation must do the same. “It is time for our government to require health warnings and to publicize simple steps to reduce the health risks of cell phone use. We cannot afford to wait.” (http://tinyurl.com/2baj2kdand http://sfg.ly/c0Fy9y.) 3. Lloyd Morgan agrees that the industry is not telling us the truth about the harmful effects of EMF. Sometimes it takes 30-40 years for the latency of brain cancer to develop once a person is exposed to the radiation. After 11 years of high usage of cell phones, the risk increases of brain cancer by 270-280%. The cell phone regulations are controlled by the cell phone industry and corporations. Questions and Answers:


40


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165