Dear Citizens
Please spread the message and email to
create awareness among citizens parents children before it is too late.
quote :
Prakash Munshi :
HI TECH FASHION
MAKE THE POCKETS SMALLER NOT BIGGER
THE BIGGER THE POCKET CLOSER THE PHONE TO YOUR BODY AND GENETIC PARTS.
WHY DO CELL PHONE MANUFACTURERS ADVISE KEEP THE PHONE AS FAR AWAY AS POSSIBLE
FROM THE BODY. ARE HIGH FASHION GARMENT GARMENT MANUFACTURERS
WANTING TO BECOME RESPONDENTS IN LEGAL CASES IN USA EUROPE BY ENCOURAGING CITIZENS YOUNG & OLD FROM KEEPING CELL PHONES IN HIP& SIDE POCKETS
CELL PHONES ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PUT IN POCKETS -
SIDE POCKETS OR HIP POCKETS.
THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLE INCREASE IN PCOS / PCOD AMONG YOUNG LADIES
POSSIBLY DUE EMF RADIATION FROM CELL
PHONES AND SMART PHONES WHICH ARE NOT TURNED OFF OR NOT PUT ON AIRPLANE MODE.
SMART PHONES DOWNLOAD CONTINUOUSLY AND GENERATE EMF RADIATION AT
REGULAR LEVELS WHILE DOWNLOADING
PLEASE DO NOT PUT PHONES IN SHIRT OR PANT POCKETS.
IPHONE AND BLACKBERRY SAY KEEP PHONE AWAY FROM BODY. PLEASE READ THEIR
SAFETY PRECAUTIONS MENTIONED IN THEIR USER MANUALS.
Safety and Product Information
BlackBerry 8703e Smartphone Page 13
Holster:
The BlackBerry device might not come with a holster (body-worn
accessory). If you
wear the BlackBerry device on your body, always put the device in a BlackBerry device holster equipped with an integrated belt clip supplied or approved by Research In Motion (RIM). If you do not use a holster equipped with an integrated belt clip supplied or approved by RIM when you carry the BlackBerry device, keep the device at least 0.98 inches (25 mm) from your body when the BlackBerry device is turned on and connected to a wireless network.
When using any data feature of the BlackBerry device, with or without
a USB cable, hold the device at least 0.98 inches (25 mm) from your body.
Using accessories that are not supplied or approved by RIM might cause
your BlackBerry device to exceed radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines.
For more information on radio frequency exposure, see the "Compliance
information" section of this document.
DO WE ?
Apple warns customers to never use or carry an iPhone in your pocket
http://consumers4safephones.com/apple-warns-customers-to-never-use-or-carry-an-iphone-in-your-pocket/ Posted May 27, 2012.
SAR measurement may exceed the FCC exposure guidelines for body-worn
operation if positioned less than 15 mm (5/8 inch) from the body (e.g. when
carrying iPhone in your pocket). For optimal mobile device performance and to
be sure that human exposure to RF energy does not exceed the FCC, IC, and European
Union guidelines, always follow these instructions and precautions: When on a
call using the built-in audio receiver in iPhone, hold iPhone with the dock
connector pointed down toward your shoulder to increase separation from the
antenna. When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless
data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 mm (5/8
inch) away from the body, and only use carrying cases, belt clips, or holders
that do not have metal parts and that maintain at least 15 mm (5/8 inch)
separation between iPhone and the body.”
DO WE ?
PLEASE ALSO READ WHAT IPHONE 6 USER MANUAL SAYS:
Latest iphone 6 user manual out... It also says... in case of
discomfort, stop using iphone and consult a physician...
Pg 170
Medical device interference
iPhone contains components and radios that emit electromagnetic
fields. iPhone also contains magnets and the included headphones also have
magnets in the earbuds. These electromagnetic fields and magnets may
interfere with pacemakers, defibrillators,
or other medical devices. Maintain a safe distance of separation between your medical device and iPhone and the earbuds. Consult your physician and medical device manufacturer for information specific to your medical device. If you suspect iPhone is interfering with your pacemaker or any other medical device, stop using iPhone.
Medical conditions
If you have any medical condition that you believe could be affected by iPhone (for example, seizures, blackouts, eyestrain, or headaches), consult with your physician prior to using iPhone
WHY ? WHY ? WHY ?
IF CELL PHONES ARE SAFE WHY THESE PRECAUTIONARIES
ARE GIVEN BY THE PHONE MANUFACTURERS.
TO SAVE THEM FROM BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IF THE CITIZENS TAKE THEM TO
COURT. THEY WILL ASK HAVE YOU BEEN FOLLOWING THE PRECAUTIONARIES GIVEN BY US
IN USER'S MANUALS.
HAVE YOU READ THE USER'S MANUALS.
WATCH OUT !!
Unquote
Regards
Prakash R Munshi
3 Raj Niketan Opp. Sahyadri State Guest House B G Kher Marg Mumbai 400006
Tel : 022 23685256
Cell : +91 98204 00053 ( sms please )
___,_.___
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Friday, November 21, 2014
Facebook posts of today's media reports Times of India 2014-10-03
METROPOLIS HEALTHCARE CAUTIONS AGAINST RISE IN YOUNG WOMEN SUFFERING FROM PCOS LEADING TO POLYCYSTIC OVARIAN DISEASE HINDUSTAN TIMES 25 09 2014
Dear Reshma
Please pass on this email to Dr.Sushil
Shah and Dr. Sonali Kolte.
Dear Dr. Shah and Dr. Kolte
We read with interest an interview given
by Dr. Sonali Kolte to Hindustan Times, Mumbai reported in today's Paper.
We are concerned Citizens led by Ms Juhi
Chawla Mehta creating awareness on health hazards due EMF Radiation
from Mobile Phones and Mobile Tower Antennae.
We would like to inform you that our
team of Citizens and Doctors had also observed a substantial increase in PCOD
in young women.
They have linked it to putting of cell
phones in pant / jeans pockets by young ladies in the hip pockets or side
pockets without turning the cell phones off.
A recent visit by a Finnish radiation
expert Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski also confirmed that Data downloading on smart
phones is a major radiation problem. The phones of these young ladies is
always on and the data transfer creates higher radiation.
Can you reconfirm with your patients
where they put their phones and whether their phones are smart phones and if
their data downloads are always on.
I am not sure if you have a smart phone
and if you have read the user’s manual.
The Blackberry and Iphone users manual
mention very clearly that the phone should be kept 10 mm from the body.
Please also read iphone 6 manual.
Latest iphone 6 user
manual out... It also says... in case of discomfort, stop using iphone and consult a
physician... Pg 170
Dr. Divya Prabhat of Bhatia Hospital ENT
Surgeon has confirmed a big increase in hearing loss cases in Mumbai which
can possibly lead to glioma of the auditory nerve with unlimited use of
mobile phones. Please see his interview video on www.controlradiation.org.
I would love to meet you both and share
our thoughts.
We would like to invite you to meet
Dr.Devra Davis an American Health and Environment expert visiting India
next week.
Please contact me on phone. 022 23685256
, 23672115 to support our Awareness Program.
Regards
Prakash R Munshi
3 Raj Niketan Opp. Sahyadri State Guest House B G Kher Marg Mumbai 400006
Tel : 022 23685256
Cell : +91 98204 00053 ( sms please )
facebook : https://www.facebook.com/reduceemfradiation
Please read some relevant articles :
We of course are well aware of Funded Research and Paid News by
Industry but our Awareness Programs will continue.
1. http://www.rense.com/general63/facts.htm
You Don't Deserve Brain Cancer - You Deserve The Facts By Amy Worthington observer@coldreams.com 2-23-5
2. http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/cellphonecancer.php Cell Phones,
Cancers and Brain Tumors. Do cell phones cause Cancer?
What is the REAL story?
August 2014 - WebMD, Medscape Medical News: Children Face Higher
Health Risk From Cell Phones, The potential harm from microwave radiation
(MWR) given off by wireless devices, particularly for children and unborn
babies, is the highlight of a new review.Although the data are conflicting,
links between MWR and cancer have been observed.
May 31, 2011 - WHO (World Health Organization) IARC just announced
that radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, as reported by
CNN. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same "carcinogenic
hazard" category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform. Note that this
is a reversal of WHO's previous position. According to CNN, the Apple iPhone
4 safety manual warns users, "When using iPhone near your body for voice
calls or for wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone
at least 15 mm (5/8 inch) away from the body." and Blackberry Bold
advises users to, "keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.98 in. (25 mm)
from your body when the BlackBerry device is transmitting." See this
page for the IARC's page on the subject.
Also please read in iphone 6 safety manual more shocking details.
May 17, 2010 - According to the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (funded in part by WHO, the World
Health Organization) using a cell phone for as little as 30 minutes may
increase your risk of getting a brain tumor (glioma). The study is reported
to have included 13,000 participants over 10 years.
__._,_.___
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
WHO notification
13 September 2014 at 6:33am | 5,337
576
SHARES
FacebookTwitter
by Susan Foster
Is there a scientist in the
European Commission’s SCENIHR and the World Health Organization who is
suppressing Lennart Hardell’s science?
The independent science is clear, but
is being suppressed: “smart” meters, cell/grid towers, phones, and wi-fi are
causing devastating harm to us and our children.
In May 2011 the World Health Organization’s cancer committee, IARC,
voted to classify the RF – EMF Spectrum as a 2B or “possible human
carcinogen.” Worldwide attention was once again focused on the possible
cancer causing effects of RF (microwave) radiation, yet in the three years
since the 2B classification, two divergent paths have been taken with respect
to the science focusing on cell phones and brain tumors.
On one hand, the Hardell Group from Sweden led by oncologist Dr.
Lennart Hardell published five more studies in 2013 – for the first time
looking at over 20 years of data. As a result of these findings Dr. Hardell
has called for an urgent upgrading of the classification of RF – EMF from 2B
to Group 1 – a known human carcinogen. If IARC were to accept Dr. Hardell’s
recommendation, RF – EMF would then be placed in the same carcinogenic category
as tobacco and asbestos.
On the other hand, there appears to be a back-room effort to ignore,
denounce and bury Dr. Hardell’s newest science by two highly recognized
groups, the World Health Organization and SCENIHR, the European Commission’s
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks.
Susan Foster, on behalf of the UK’s Radiation Research Trust, has
discovered that one man appears to be responsible for the attempted
suppression of what is arguably the best epidemiological research in the
world on cell phone usage and its correlation to gliomas and acoustic
neuromas. This science could threaten a multi-trillion dollar industry; thus
the stakes could not be higher – for corporate profits, yet more importantly,
for the health of people all over the world.
In her letter of May 8, 2014 to the European Commission’s John Ryan,
Acting Director of the European Commission’s Health and Consumers division,
Susan Foster accuses SCENIHR of scientific misconduct. She further asks for a
thorough review of the process whereby science was selected for SCENIHR’s
Preliminary Report. SCENIHR had been given the charge of reviewing the
present RF – EMF safety limits affecting over 500,000,000 European citizens.
“This is not ‘independence’ on SCENIHR’s part,” states Susan Foster.
“This is scientific misconduct. SCENIHR is claiming to be something it is
not, and hundreds of millions of lives are at stake as well as the ability to
impact standards worldwide, albeit indirectly.”
Susan Foster joins Eileen O’Connor, Director of the UK’s Radiation
Research Trust in demanding a new unbiased evaluation of health risks from RF
– EMF by SCENIHR.
———————————
May 8, 2014
John F. Ryan, Acting Director
Public Health Directorate
Health and Consumers Directorate General
European Commission, L – 2920 Luxembourg (sent Via Email)
SCENIHR Preliminary Report on Potential Health Effects of Exposure to
Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)
Dear Mr. Ryan:
The concern about the 2014 SCENIHR Preliminary Report has been swift, severe,
and global. It causes those who know the science and comprehend the potential
for harm from microwave radiation to ask if SCENIHR is truly a body worth
listening to, or has it lost all credibility. In hopes that all is not lost,
I am writing to express my profound concern that industry-bias is destroying
the ability of standard-setting bodies to protect the citizens of Europe, and
indirectly, citizens on a global scale.
As an Advisor to the UK’s Radiation Research Trust (RRT), I am
following up on RRT Director Eileen O’Connor’s recent letter to you asking
for a thorough review of the SCENIHR Preliminary Report and the process
itself by which science is selected for consideration. I contend the current
selection process by SCENIHR is suggestive of a pattern of scientific fraud
that is intended to suppress high quality science in order to preserve the
way the telecommunications industry conducts business. The question must be
asked if both SCENIHR and the World Health Organization are being influenced
or controlled by the same interests and individuals who favor industry
profits over their charge of protecting the public health.
No fewer than 500 million citizens of the European Commission are
relying on SCENIHR for review of the current EMF standards, which have already
been criticized as being set more than a thousand times higher than the level
at which adverse biological impacts occur. When standards are set this high,
it allows the manufacturers to falsely yet legally assure consumers, “There
is no health problem or safety concern as the level of exposure is
1/1000th of what is allowable.” Thus there is the promise of safety,
which is only an illusion because so-called “safety standards” are set
capriciously high to begin with. There is no legitimate, independent science
that will declare the current standards are safe. Absolutely none.
In my opinion and that of many others, the 2014 SCENIHR Preliminary
Report inaccurately and, in part, fraudulently assesses the existing science.
It ignores the new science by Lennart Hardell (five studies in 2013) in which
he calls for radiofrequency RF – EMF to be classified a Group 1 carcinogen.
Yet rarely has “dismissing” a group of studies shone the spotlight on them so
brightly. It is causing people around the world to ask what is so significant
about these new Hardell studies. The answer to that question may shed some
light on the inner-workings and true motivation behind some key SCENIHR
scientists.
It was the Hardell Group’s earlier science that IARC, the World Health
Organization’s cancer committee, used along with the Interphone Study before
declaring a 2B classification in May 2011 for all EMF within the RF Spectrum.
The newer Hardell epidemiological studies cover more than 20 years, something
no similar study has ever done, and the results are so convincing that
Lennart Hardell states in his conclusion that RF – EMF should be urgently
upgraded to a human carcinogen with no “possible” or “probable”
qualifications. Dr. Hardell makes the case that RF radiation belongs in the Group
1 human carcinogen category.
By ignoring Hardell’s science, SCENIHR attempts to marginalize and
even suppress the Hardell Group’s science which could change the way the
world—consumers, courts, and governments alike—view the use of wireless in
today’s world. Why would SCENIHR, a group composed predominantly of
industry-friendly scientists, work so hard to pretend they “had not received”
or “did not like the methodology of the epidemiology” of the 2013 Hardell
studies? There is a possible answer to this question. A Group 1 or even a 2A
classification changes the “causation” argument in cell phone/brain tumor
court cases, and will make it easier for victims who have developed brain
tumors related to cell phone usage to prevail in the courts. When consumers
prevail in the courts, it may force the mobile industry toward a more cost
effective manufacturing decision to shield mobile phones and find safer ways
(e.g., fiber optics) to replace microwave signal transmissions. It would, at
least in the short run, increase costs for the mobile industry and decrease
profits. I believe the Hardell Group’s 2013 studies are game-changing, and as
such, the industry wants this science suppressed.
To further the concern that SCENIHR is not operating in good faith,
the one scientist who was touted by SCENIHR as being their proof of
objectivity is Dr. Kjell Hansson Mild of Sweden. Dr. Hansson Mild is one of
the co-authors along with Dr. Lennart Hardell in four of the five studies
published in 2013 and subsequently ignored by both the World Health
Organization (WHO) in its 2014 World Cancer Report and
SCENIHR. For SCENIHR to pin their reputation as an objective body on the
presence of Dr. Hansson Mild, and then to ignore five Hardell studies, four
of which were co-authored by Dr. Mild himself, is the height of hypocrisy. It
casts a deep shadow of doubt on SCENIHR’s Report. I am aware that Dr. Hansson
Mild has come forward with a letter detailing his attempts to have the 2013
Hardell Group science included in SCENIHR’s report, and his efforts were
denied. He described bringing the Hardell Group studies to the attention of
Dr. Joachim Schüz, in particular. These papers were delivered within the time
frame for acceptance of publication and are relevant as they provide evidence
of the link between mobile phone use and glioma and acoustic neuroma. The
Hardell papers were systematically disregarded while SCENIHR relies heavily
on the much criticized Danish cohort study using poor exposure data. [See
Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hardell L. Review of four publications on the
Danish cohort study on mobile phone subscribers and risk of brain tumors.
Reviews Environmental Health. 2012; 27: 51-58.]
When another highly criticized study was sent to SCENIHR [Benson et
al, with Joachim Schüz as a co-author], including two reports that were
published during the same time or even after the Hardell
studies, it was included in the SCENIHR Preliminary Report. This study failed
to find a link between cell phones and cancer, and when it initially did find
a link between cell phones and acoustic neuroma, the authors, including
Schüz, failed to discuss it in the Abstract. The systematic inclusion of poor
quality science with industry backing, and the systematic exclusion of
Hardell’s science, allowed SCENIHR to come to an erroneous conclusion that
evidence for glioma is weaker now than in 2009. This sort of “cherry-picking”
favors industry profits over consumer protection and thus the SCENIHR Report
should not even be considered science.
This is not “independence” on SCENIHR’s part. This is scientific
misconduct. SCENIHR is claiming to be something it is not, and hundreds of
millions of lives are at stake as well as the ability to impact standards
worldwide, albeit indirectly.
It is important to note that Dr. Joachim Schüz has been named as the key person to whom Hardell’s science was delivered and summarily dismissed, both as Head of IARC’s Section of Environment and Radiation and as a SCENIHR Committee Member. As Dr. Mild wrote to you in a letter dated 28 April 2014: “It must be clearly stated that Dr Schüz refused to include these studies in SCENIHR and that the omission is his responsibility.” Dr. Mild elaborates: “[Schüz] clearly stated that the epidemiological part was solely his responsibility to write and furthermore he himself was to decide what to include.” It is also important to note that Schüz has received industry funding for much of his participation in studies such as Interphone and COSMOS which had predictable findings. Should Dr. Schüz’s influence continue to be felt at SCENIHR, and by the same token, at IARC?
Gratefully, the BioInitiative Working Group is offering us an
alternative that is receiving increasing recognition and respect around the
world and, as you know from Cindy Sage’s recent letter to you, BioInitiative
has done a thorough review of SCENIHR’s Report and issued its response. I am
offering the link to the BioInitiative Working Group’s letter commenting on
the 2014 SCENIHR Preliminary Report. http://www.bioinitiative.org/potential-health-effects-emf/
Mona Nilsson on behalf of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation
submitted her comments to SCENIHR on 16 April 2014, and they are well-worth
reading. I have included a link to Ms. Nilsson’s comments, in which she
writes to SCENIHR: “The Preliminary Opinion of SCENIHR gives a false and even
fraudulent presentation of research results and statistical data. Critical
data are abundantly omitted or ignored. Studies and results showing health
risks from radiofrequency and low frequency radiation are misrepresented.
Studies showing no risks with severe limitations and errors are instead
presented without any relevant criticism.” http://www.emfacts.com/2014/05/further-critique-of-the-scenihr-spin/
I join the RRT’s Director Eileen O’Connor, Cindy Sage on behalf of the
BioInitiative Working Group, Mona Nilsson of the Swedish Radiation Protection
Foundation, and scores of others in calling upon the European Commission to
investigate possible conflicts of interest on the part of SCENIHR scientists,
and to demand a thorough investigation of the selection process of science for
the 2014 SCENIHR Preliminary Report. I also call for a new unbiased
evaluation of health risks from RF – EMF by SCENIHR.
Respectfully Yours,
Susan Foster
Advisor, Radiation Research Trust (UK) Medical Writer
The EM Radiation Research Trust is an educational organisation funded
by donations. An independent Charity Registered No. 1106304 © The EM
Radiation Research Trust 2003-2004. Printed with author’s permission.
__._,_.___
|
|||||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)