YOUR SAY
Posted with permission from
Marjorie Lundquist, Bioelectromagnetic Hygienist, USA. The letter was submitted
to the New York Times.
Dear Editor:
Jane Brody, in her October 1st column on cellular phones, assumes that Robert
Park of the American Physical Society tells the world everything it needs to
know in his "What's New" column on the APS Web site. Actually,
in my professional judgment as a Ph.D. physicist and Certified Industrial
Hygienist, he shoots from the hip rather irresponsibly.
He correctly advises that microwave radiation lacks sufficient photon energy to
break chemical bonds. Nevertheless, microwaves can produce a health
effects that mimics a case of mild radiation poisoning; this has been known for
nearly half a century.
Ionizing radiation, which does possess enough photon energy to break chemical
bonds, produces its damage by the creation of free radicals in living tissues.
Microwave radiation also is capable of producing free radicals in living
tissues, but by a different mechanism: a chemical mechanism that involves
the oxidation and reduction of iron.
The correct answer to the question in the title of Jane Brody's column is
"Both". Microwave radiation is capable of causing, to a mild
degree, the same kind of damage to health as a low dose of ionizing radiation
can cause. This damage to health includes, but is not limited to, cancer.
Marjorie Lundquist, Ph.D., C.I.H.
Bioelectromagnetic Hygienist
P. O. Box 11831
Milwaukee, WI 53211-0831
October 2002
SENSITIVE
PEOPLE
ALLERGIC
TO MICROCHIPS September
9th 2000 report in a UK newspaper of a woman
who is allergic to microchips.
Mrs Stock's allergy has been
diagnosed as a reaction to the
electro-magnetic radiation generated by microchips,
whose signals interfere with the electrical pulses in her own brain.
She has been suffering from
blinding headaches whenever she goes near a computer or other high-tech
electronic equipment and is unable to shop
in supermarkets, watch a colour television, travel on public transport or
in a modern car, or even cross a road at a pelican crossing. "It
has got worse and worse over the
last ten years. Everything has computer chips in it these days. It is very
frustrating because I am so limited to what I can do and where I can go.
It is also very frightening because
it is an unbearable pain that is completely out of
my control."
Mrs Stock's GP, Dr David Dowson,
said: "Electro-magnetic sensitivity is so rare, people often dismiss it as
a psychological problem, but it is certainly not."
Simon Best, editor of the
medical news journal Electromagnetic Hazard and Therapy, described Joan's
symptoms as classic: "A significant number of people are reporting some
kind of electrode sensitivity. The allergy is very restrictive. It affects both
the working and domestic life. "Sufferers
can fall unconscious at any time. They
are also plagued by nausea, blurred vision
and migraines. It is a very serious condition."
This abbreviation was listed on
GURU e-mail list by : VICTOR MANUEL
QUINTERO FLOREZ DEPARTAMENTO
DE TRANSMISION FACULTAD DE INGENIERIA ELECTRONICA Y TELECOMUNICACIONES
UNIVERSIDAD DEL CAUCA e-mail: vflorez@ucauca.edu.co
OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF BABES
A Sydney school teacher set a
task for her class of 6year olds, to draw a word picture using the letter
‘x’.
One little girl, with the
reading skills of a child about to
enter high school (even though she was only 6 yrs, presented her picture story
of a fox sitting on a table. Nearby she had drawn a square containing a bone and
another square contained a machine-like device. In the lower right hand corner
well away from the other drawings was a little girl holding an umbrella. When
asked to relate her story the child said “Fox
is spelled with an ‘x’. The fox
is lying on the x-ray table and the
bone is an x-ray of his leg and the other square is an x-ray machine." When
asked what the little girl in the drawing was doing way over in the corner, the
teacher was told that "Everyone knows that x-rays can do bad things to you
so she is standing a long way away and the umbrella is protecting her.”
If only more children were as
aware and had the understanding of this little girl. Where
the present generation has struggled, her generation will hopefully make
greater progress in convincing the
authorities that x-rays are
not the only levels of electrical
energy with the potential to harm
our health, if used unwisely.
While we recognise the immense
benefit that electricity has provided for society we now need to learn to use it
with caution and respect in the interest of community health. Maybe we should
draw pictures for the authorities caring for community health ?
GLOBAL
CAMPAIGN FOR (MCS) RECOGNITION
Global Recognition Campaign for
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and other chemically induced illnesses,
diseases and injury affecting civilians and military personnel
Thank you, Diana Buckland, Australia
INCREASE IN BREAST CANCER INCIDENTS
During the recent breast cancer Awareness Week in NSW Australia, it was noted that while better treatments are now available for breast cancer there is no decline but in fact an increase in the number of incidents of breast cancer. We are no closer to finding the cause/causes of this devastating disease.
A great deal has been published
regarding the possible causes of breast cancer, a disease the effects of which
affect the primary patient AND her family. Environmental factors such as the
toxic chemical and less known electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure are all
but ignored in the patient’s home and work environment. We need to revisit
and study the many published works linking environmental factors with cancer
to appreciate their worth in the mounting struggle to curb the increase in
breast cancer cases among both men and our women. Rachel Carson, Don
Maisch’s paper presented to Parliament by Senator Lynn Allison ( 50-60 Hertz
Electromagnetic Fields and Breast Cancer An Australian Senate discussion
Paper, 27 October 1997 (published in Hansard) Don Maisch, EMFacts ...
omega.twoday.net/stories/1193067/ - 32k -
Cached -
Similar pages
[
More results from omega.twoday.net
and a publication by Rachel’s Newsletter (USA)
THE BREAST CANCER DILEMMA
Breast Cancer and Environment Factors In 1997, a feature film released in the USA, related the activities of a group of six women living with breast cancer who were seeking answers about the cause of the disease. The women interviewed scientists and researchers across the country.
The film, titled Rachel’s Daughters was inspired by the experiences of several women who met while visiting their daughters, hospitalised for treatment for breast cancer. These mothers remarked at the prevalence of breast cancer among young women and the tragedy and oddity of women, in some instances burying their daughters – when in the normal course of life events, the reverse would be the case.
The title ‘Rachel’s Daughters’ is seen to reflect on Rachel Carson’s work, a pioneer scientist who alerted the world to the health dangers of pesticides in her book ‘Silent Spring’ in 1962. Carson found evidence of the lethal impact of certain chemicals on bird and other wildlife and could see a clear indication of a similar impact occurring on the human population. Rachel Carson herself died of cancer.
The attitude of rejection and denial which surrounded Carson’s work and later, the asbestos and tobacco health issues, is also evident in the more recent reports of cancer clusters deemed to be associated with exposure to electromagnetic field radiation (EMF).
There are now a significant number of studies linking breast cancer with electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. It is imperative that the EMF pollution issue, in all its complexity, is addressed. In those cases where EMF may not be the primary cause of illness it most certainly can be deduced as a promoter. There are studies which reveal a greater growth rate of established malignancies when EMF/R has been applied. Dr William Ross Adey’s work on the combined effects of chemical and electrical pollution demands our attention::
JOINT ACTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NON-IONIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS and CHEMICAL POLLUTION IN CANCER PROMOTION Dr W R Adey (1990) Enviro Health Perspectives Vol.,86 pp.297 305
“…. epidemilogic and laboratory studies emphasise the growing impact of environmental chemical pollution and the rapidly increasing deployment of an almost infinite variety of environmental electromagnetic fields as possible joint factors in the promotion of cancer. As we move toward the 21st century elucidation of mechanisms underlying these interactions at the cellular and molecular level will become matters of urgency. At the same time, implementation of public policies that would mitigate risks from these exposures may impact heavily on existing industrial practices. And on important aspects of environmental planning and housing and urban development. At this stage, it is of paramount importance that the significance of these issues is no longer ignored.”
See: www.oocities.org/emrsafety and www.emfacts.
It must be noted that the official guidelines, adhered to by our Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), grossly inadequate and outdated¸ are in need of serious review given the more recent scientific findings and the increasing reports of clusters and singly located events of EMF related ill health in the community.
It is these same outdated guidelines to which investigators refer while attempting to identify EMF health risk zones, their reports thus unwittingly conveying a false sense of security to the public.
Many health warnings go unheeded or are denied, to our detriment. We need to revisit Rachel Carson’s work to remind us of our chemical pollution history and we need to revisit the film ‘Rachel’s Daughters’ in which environmental factors including electromagnetic field radiation (EMF/R) are noted.
Though some uncertainty may remain as to HOW environmental factors impact on health. There exists sufficient evidence both scientific and empirical, to prompt due diligence in avoiding any environmental agent deemed to be a health risk. This includes EMF radiation, known to causes adverse biological effects which may reasonably be seen to lead to ill health. All environmental factors should thus be seriously considered firstly in the establishment of realistic health and safety guidelines and secondly in the patient’s treatment regime and thirdly the general publics’ exposure as an occupational and domestic health and safety measure.
For further information regarding the film ‘Rachel’s Daughters’ refer to http//:www.com/filmCatalog/pages/c401.html and http//:www.bcaction.org
This comment provided by a breast cancer patient.
INFORMATION