By Kim Goldberg
May 21, 2014
In 2013, the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control issued a 377-page report titled “Radiofrequency Toolkit for Environmental Health Practitioners.”
The entire document can be viewed and downloaded here.
The weighty tome appears to be primarily a government whitewash of the wireless industry, in an effort to allay legitimate public concern about the biotoxic nature of RF radiation from cell phones, cordless phones, wi-fi, and (most significantly to the BC government) smart meters.
The report drowns us in “science” designed to make any reader feel that if she can’t wade through dozens of mathematical equations using long strings of Greek letters, then she isn’t qualified to speak out about RF hazards.
The report trots out all the predictable faulty logic and false analogies such as telling us on page 25 that our own bodies are constantly emitting EMF in the 31,000 GHz range (i.e., our infra-red heat signature). So why worry about the lower frequencies of our wireless devices, seems to be the implied question/statement.
But then on page 31, something interesting pops up. While describing the purportedly benign Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machines used in hospital radiology, the report tells us that “RF fields of 10-400 MHz [are used] to excite the protons in the body and cause them to emit radio waves for the acquisition of anatomical images.”
(For a more detailed description of this phenomenon of proton excitation by radio frequencies, see the British Medical Journal article on Magnetic Resonance Imaging.)
Thanks so much for making my case for me.
Yes, it can certainly be medically useful (at times) to have those MRI images. But the relevant take-away here is that our protons are perpetually being turned into RF transmitters by our daily exposure to wireless RF radiation from smart meters, cell phones, wi-fi, and more.
And that particular transformation of our bodies at a sub-atomic level is one that nobody signed on for and most people would reject if they knew it was happening to them.
Article © Kim Goldberg, 2014
Thank-you very much for this information, Kim! I am saving it for future reference.
Thanks for posting this. Here’s more damaging information on how technology can be used for all the wrong reasons:
“The phenotypic expression of autism, according to the Triple Hit Hypothesis, is determined by three factors: a developmental time window of vulnerability, genetic susceptibility, and environmental stressors. In utero exposure to thalidomide, valproic acid, and maternal infections are examples of some of the teratogenic agents which increase the risk of developing autism and define a time window of vulnerability. An additional stressor to genetically susceptible individuals during this time window of vulnerability may be prenatal ultrasound. Ultrasound enhances the genesis and differentiation of progenitor cells by activating the nitric oxide (NO) pathway and related neurotrophins. The effects of this pathway activation, however, are determined by the stage of development of the target cells, local concentrations of NO, and the position of nuclei (basal versus apical), causing consequent proliferation at some stages while driving differentiation and migration at others. Ill-timed activation or overactivation of this pathway by ultrasound may extend proliferation, increasing total cell number, and/or may trigger precipitous migration, causing maldistribution of neurons amongst cortical lamina, ganglia, white matter, and germinal zones. The rising rates of autism coincident with the increased use of ultrasound in obstetrics and its teratogenic/toxic effects on the CNS demand further research regarding a putative correlation.”
2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Click to access ultrasound.pdf
Additional reading and analysis:
Click to access Autism_ultrasound.pdf
I am not sure what you think this proves, for it is clear you do not understand how magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) works. MRI has nothing in common with microwave communications devices or systems: the frequencies are different, the physics are different, and the technology is different from that in use with MRI. May I suggest you read the article at Wikipedia entitled “Physics of magnetic resonance imaging” at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_magnetic_resonance_imaging#Radio_frequency_system .
Mr. Lee’s comments only partially stand up to scrutiny. The paragraph he quotes called “Summary” comes from the first Yimg link he provides and points to a study published in Medical Hypotheses. This can charitably be described as a junk science journal. The second link “PMC1538990” concludes: “These results call for … continued scrutiny of unnecessarily long prenatal ultrasound exposure.” For a factual presentation, see the Wikipedia article “Medical ultrasonography”, section “Risks and side effects” at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound_imaging#Risks_and_side-effects .
The last link is to Mercola is also dubious, and the use of the word “deadly” is sensational, but the article does contain one statement about CT scans that is supported by more reliable sources like the Wikipedia article “X-ray computed tomography” at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_computed_tomography : “While high-tech imaging can be beneficial in certain cases, it must be used SPARINGLY because it exposes your body to dangerous radiation—radiation that is proven to cause cancer.” It is always a question of examining risks and benefits.
Hello robertquickertq: I would submit it is the informational materials available on Wikipedia pages that are known to be dubious. It is common knowledge that Wikipedia pages are often (back door) funded and freely modifiable by persons working for industrial, governmental, or corporate “interests”. These persons and interests have no particular moral code regarding proper presentation of factual evidences…
Thus, you may find it helpful to review other source information prior to negating the essential facts. Thousands of research scientists have reviewed studies and empirically observed changes in biological cells over the course of the last 60+ years. Changes in cellular functions due to electromagnet emissions induction is no longer a question in the biological sciences. The only persons who continue to question these established correlations are persons who are seeking additional research grants, or those who are seeking to protect the continuing profitability of industrial concerns…
My suggestion is to download and review the
BioInitiative Report 2012
Click to access BioInitiativeReport2012.pdf
From the quality of your comments, I’m quite certain you have no concept of how electromagnetic technology has been misused and/or maladapted for economic and political gains…
I agree Paul Vonharnish, We don’t understand how magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) works exactly, however a strong magnetic field (depending on frequency) may affect the health of people, in different ways.
Mr. Vonharnish is ignoring the central point I made. Ms. Goldberg is citing an article about RF being used in MRI and suggesting that wireless communications have a similar effect. The analogy fails as the two technologies are fundamentally different. If you don’t trust Wikipedia (foolish, but all right then), any competent site will have details about MRIs as the science, physics and technology behind it are well understood — obvious, since the 2003 Nobel Prize for Medicine was awarded for it!
MRIs use an extremely strong static magnetic field coupled with radio waves in the short wave band (so not microwaves) at up to 35 kW peak power output and 1 kW sustained, both used right next to body. Wireless mobile telephony and WiFi use microwaves only and operate at a maximum of 1.6 W (mobile phone) and 200 mW (WiFi). Despite the much higher field strength and power output of MRIs, they are safe, as the millions carried out every day attest.
The other arguments Mr. Vonharnish makes are not relevant to this discussion.
Erm… Mr. Quickert,
Like many back room technical discussions, you postulate that I fail to understand electronics technology. Well, fine. This happens all the time in electronics and technology industries, because everyone gets an opportunity to be incompetent at something…
I spent 37 years in the electronics technology arena, along with 20+ years in discrete analog design at a component level. However, the issue at hand is not specific technical parameters of MRI versus cellular phone emissions. The issue being discussed is whether changes can occur in biological cells as a result of man-made electromagnetic induction. The answer is yes.
There are thousands of competent studies carried out by persons in the biological sciences (not the electronics industry) who specify that extremely low level EM field inductions cause changes to cellular function. Many of these changes are clearly detailed in the literature. You should read about it some time…
MRI machines cause damage to cells like any other man-made induction field, period. These changes may not be life threatening or long term, but multiple exposures to these fields is not a bright idea at all. MRI and Ultrasound technology is not needed for a proper diagnostic in most cases. AMA trained “doctors” are unwittingly playing with very dangerous toys, and are typically clueless about anything but billing. I submit many are dreaming some childhood dream about being “Bones” from Star Trek…
I found this video account of a wireless industry worker that was exposed to the hazards of wireless radiation. This man actually works in the industry but he received no safety training to protect himself from the harmful radiation. If an industry worker who spends his life working around these antennas can be burned or perhaps worse from the RF radiation what chance do innocent tradespeople have to protect themselves? I’ve been searching all over but this is the first time I’ve seen someone speak out about the unsafe conditions that the wireless industry is making for people who find themselves in front of live antennas, and sometimes without even knowing that they are still activated or causing them harm.
Thanks for sharing this video, John!