Jill Stein thinks WiFi is dangerous

The cringe-worthy Trump-Clinton race has led some Bernie Sanders’ supporters to shift their support to protest candidates like Jill Stein.

As a true liberal, they say, she is eminently qualified to lead the progressive movement. However, her actual positions say otherwise.

For example, at a campaign event this past March she called the use of technology in education a “corporate ruse.” According to Stein, “we should be moving away from screens at all levels of education.” Stein also has concerns about the safety of WiFi — she says we “should not be subjecting kids’ brains to that.”

The World Health Organization disagrees, noting noting that radiation “exposures from base stations range from 0.002% to 2% of the levels of international exposure guidelines.” Humans, in fact, absorb up to five times more radiation from FM radio and television than from WiFi technology.

Tin foil hat cat via Shutterstock.

Tin foil hat cat via Shutterstock.

Animal studies have also demonstrated no link between WiFi and cancer, “even at levels that are much higher than produced” by wireless networks. And scientists have observed no adverse effects relating to brain function, body temperature, or other physiological functions.

The greatest health risk from electronic devices is not the radiation they produce, but rather their encouragement of a sedentary lifestyle. Still, condemning President Obama’s initiatives for expanding computer programming and software education in schools as a “corporate ruse” in essence condemns the progress of science and society itself.

It’s clear that Jill Stein’s candidacy is more a war of words than a sincere effort to confront the complex realities of public health and all the other issues facing this country.

Like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, Stein is seems more interesting in pointing to the angriest voice in the crowd and amplifying it, without regard for the scientific truth.

Stein should be focusing instead on the potential conflicts of interest between the revolving doors between regulatory agencies and the private corporations they control, or are controlled by. Doctors themselves should be brought under the scope of her campaign, as many are paid to promote more expensive, but biochemically identical, drugs to their patients.

These conflicts of interest have had real consequences: According to a 2013 Gallup poll, the Food and Drug Administration has been rated about as positively as the CIA and the EPA, with just 45% saying that they are doing a good job, as opposed to 60% for the CDC.

Citizens that do not trust health-related agencies and their doctors have few incentives to follow the health guidelines by medical professionals. With Stein’s background as doctor-turned-politician, she is in a unique position to push important issues like this to the forefront.

But despite her medical education, Stein has chosen to go down the mendacious road of identity politics. Her fight as an anti-establishment candidate is not leadership for a chicken in every pot, but deceit for a tin foil hat on every head.


Anhvinh Doanvo is an MSPPM candidate at Carnegie Mellon University. He has written for numerous publications including The Hill, Georgetown Public Policy Review, and Baltimore Sun. He is one of forty 2016 finalists for the Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs Fellowship, which funds twenty US citizens' graduate education annually and places them in the American Foreign Service of the Department of State. You can follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/anhvinhdoanvo or Facebook at Facebook.com/AnhvinhD.

Share This Post

  • Will

    Looks like you need to make a correction and owe an apology to Stein.
    http://www.newsweek.com/dr-jill-steins-stiff-dose-progressive-medicine-487943

  • quax

    Field strength matters. Call on me again when this actually makes a dent in the live expectancy between country side and city dwellers (right now the latter can expect to live 2.5 years longer). You cannot point to a single large epidemiological study that shows effects at this field strength. Anyhow, this technology will soon be overtaken by LiFi because the latter can deliver higher throughput. Try not to expire from anxiety until then. The latter is a real killer.

  • Karl Muller

    Oh, so you would literally rather risk killing your children with cancer and God knows what else, than give them an informed choice by telling them: there are some worries about wifi, but just plug this cable in, and you need have no fears? And get better bandwidth? How long will that take to explain to them?

    The head of ICNIRP, the entirely self-appointed radiation “protection” agency that sets the guidelines used by WHO, Paolo Vecchia, had this to say: “Precautionary actions to address public concerns may increase rather than mitigate worries and fears of the public. This constitutes a health detriment and should be prevented as other adverse effects of EMF.”

    In other words: precaution is a health hazard, and should literally be *prevented*. Here you can see that the “protection” authorities would far rather kill you than (Heaven forbid) *alarm* you. That is the official line. And it is the exact line you are adopting in your house with your own children.

    You say: everyone is radiating everyone, so we must all just give up. Your logic, your arguments, everything you are saying is actually so blind and stupid it is beyond belief. If you are talking about *American* health professionals, then yes, your opinions are quite in line with theirs. But check out the Freiburg Appeal, signed by thousands of physicians and other *medical professionals* mainly in Europe, who have noticed the symptoms of microwave radiation in their patients and acted to alert the world.

    Medical professionals in the US have completely abdicated their responsibility in this case. The head of the WHO’s EMF Project, Dr Emilie van Deventer, has absolutely no health experience or biological training whatsoever. She has a PhD in microwave antenna design. That’s all it is to them: an antenna design problem. She told me herself, face to face: “The operators don’t care about your health. They just want the network to work properly.” Just make the microcells small enough, the wifi spots localised enough, and then we can say: oh, the levels are just so low they simply can *not* be causing a problem, whatever the scientific evidence says. And we can always find sensible people like you, herr quax, to trot out this completely specious line, oh well, there’s just so much radiation, let’s switch on some more routers — what *difference* at this point does it make, to take some personal responsibility for the environment.

  • quax

    I am in reach of 11 WiFi networks sitting at my kitchen table (dense development). Even if I were to believe in your angst ridden outlook it would hardly make a difference. And no, I am sure as hell not going to scare the crap out of my children.

  • Karl Muller

    By LENR, are you talking about cold fusion, suddenly? What on earth does this have to do with thousands of scientific papers showing biological effects of low-level microwaves? Sorry, dude, you are really not serious.

    “Not very strong given the replication record” — no EMR study is complete without some anomalies. But 10,000 papers showing an absolutely consistent pattern of biological effects and health problems, starting with “A” for “Acoustic neuroma”, is obviously not reproducible enough for you. A 100% increase in brain tumours for 27 minutes talk a day — the unmanipulated Interphone finding across multiple countries with high significance — is not enough for you. Go and look at the consistent studies showing drastic sperm damage and reduced sperm count and motility, and tell me how many more studies might begin to convince you that just maybe there is a problem. Infertility in men was the first major symptom noted of microwave exposure, in radar operators in WW2. This was before they started going blind from strange and rare cataracts.

    I once had a fascinating conversation with the chief technical officer of a major wireless ISP in South Africa, I’m happy to give his name here. This guy was flatly denying any health issues with his broadband masts, despite copious evidence to the contrary in the form of over 70 affidavits and doctors’ letters. But he kept saying: where it is totally uncontrolled, where I agree with you that there is a problem, is with *wifi routers*, people just crank these things up without a thought.

    We measured buildings and masts right across the landscape in South Africa, and by far the highest readings we ever got were from wifi routers in restaurants and cafes. In at least one case, the radiation from a router in a coffee shop kitchen was way over the ICNIRP limits. I asked the manager if the kitchen staff were getting ill. Huge denials, everything’s fine. A few months later, the establishment ( a branch of an otherwise wildly successful franchise, in a prime spot) had closed down.

    Oh, but you have an *opinion* about this, that wifi routers must just be at such a low level, that it doesn’t matter. I forgot, we’re in a land where opinions are king, and it’s so important for people to tell others how *scientific* their *opinions* are.

    Of course, you have to battle to find somewhere to plug in a wire these days. You have to fight, and fight, and fight, and make sure that everything stays wired. As a consumer, you create the demand for wired services, and keep demanding until you get them. And stop microwaving your children.

    @quax, you are an interesting case, definitely not a full-time industry troll, but you really are completely out of your depth here. Please go and do some proper research and come back with a more balanced view. Start with the studies showing cognitive impairment from wifi exposure.

    To be honest, I have to say this conversation seems to have reached its limits. Good luck with your home cancer cluster trial — have you informed your children that you are using them in a microwave radiation experiment?

  • quax

    There are also hundredes of LENR papers. Quality and reprducability matters. There may very well be a microwave effect beyond the thermal effect. But it is not very strong given the replication record. Given the field strength of the WiFi Routers I consider it negligible. As to going WiFi free, you do realize that most gadgets these days don’t even have an ethernet plug?

  • reddox

    Lincoln wasn’t a U.S. senator in 1860, and even if he had been, senators were not directly elected at that time. In 1854, Lincoln competed in the Illinois state senate for election to the U.S. Senate, but lost in preliminary votes and encouraged his supporters to back anti-slavery Democrat Lyman Trumbull, who ultimately was one of the writers of the Thirteenth Amendment. The Illinois legislature chose Stephen Douglas over Lincoln in 1858.

    But Lincoln was active in Whig and early Republican party politics for decades. He served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1847-49. (He intended to serve only one term and did not run for re-election.) He also served in the Illinois state legislature from 1834 to 1842.

  • Karl Muller

    Yes, I’m just so interested that in all your research — in which you must have seen literally hundreds of papers reporting oxidative stress and severe genetic damage in response to microwave radiation — you manage to pull out just *that* one study. And this is the only scientific contribution you can see to make to the debate.

    You misunderstand me, however, I specifically was saying I *don’t* see you as a typical industry troll, this is exactly why I engage you, but you are parroting the line word perfect and putting forward the government establishment’s one lone response to a total game-changing paper. Your selectivity is just totally breathtaking for an outsider to this debate, that’s all.

    I genuinely am sorry to hear about your eldest child. I do think you are literally insane and beyond irresponsible to run three wifi routers in your house with children growing up in it. Please teach them to plug in a wire, it’s *not so hard*. Then they can get far better bandwidth with absolutely no risk, and even do some proper gaming. Is this such a terrible precaution to take? Far be it for me to criticise a parent, but you’ve been warned, I can do no more. You rationalise your personal situation and family illness profile, extend it to try make scientific arguments, and then lecture me about being scientific. Wow.

    Do some more research, @quax:disqus , and next time, a little less of the most absolutely blatant cherry-picking I have ever seen in a forum debate. You really must have looked hard for that one paper, if you found it all by yourself.

    Oh, of course tin foil hats work. For an EMR forum, I once copy-typed an extensive description given by a San Francisco resident who was being driven mad by the buzzing in his skull, until he wrapped an entire roll of tinfoil around his head. The story ended: “And the buzzing stopped.” You have to be careful with using single sheets of tinfoil as shielding, however, because they have regular perforations in them from the manufacturing process. When single sheets are radiated with microwaves, this regular pattern causes diffraction patterns and “hot spots” to form on the other side. You can check this out, it’s actually true. This piece of advice I got personally in the field from Mr Barrie Trower, the UK government’s top scientific researcher on microwave warfare in the 1960s. He had the highest possible security clearances and was privy to the measures taken to protect cabinet ministers etc. from microwave radiation. This is a true story from the world of “stealth” warfare — Trower was the senior interrogator who obtained the frequencies that Soviet agencies were using to radiate top politicians, Olympic teams, you name it. But yes, microwave and radar workers routinely don shielding suits when they work on live antennas. I am have been a licensed radio amateur operator since 1975, I also have a degree in physics, I also know a few of these things.

    And if you think I’m writing a lot now, you have absolutely no idea, pal. This is a deep and dark subject: not least because stealth warfare using microwaves is the very signature of modern military doctrine.

  • quax

    Missed that bit at the end (you really write too much).

    My oldest is on the autism spectrum, he is 12. Born before we started using WiFi routers in the house, his mother was a stay at home mom (no powerlines in our backyard or any other nefarious EM sources during the pregnancy). My other two kids have been born and grown up amidst much more WiFi radiation exposure, but are neuro-typical. Maybe after the autism vaccination hoax its time to let that one go as well?

  • quax

    “It is just so very interesting that you so very quickly produce this one forlorn attempt at a counter-study”

    You should try more than just the ‘I feel lucky’ button.

    But of course the “you must be an industry shill” insinuation can be expected. The truth is more prosaic. I am a father, and I have a physics degree, I did my research. I don’t see any reason not to operate three wifi routers in my home, because nowadays my kids get really irritated if they don’t have good connectivity.

    However, I avoid long talks on my cell phone unless I can do it on a speaker or through a Bluetooth earpiece, and I will happily switch to optically modulated wireless LAN once it becomes available.

    BTW, in you special case, tin foil hats really help to keep the EM radiation out.

  • Karl Muller

    Thanks for the invitation. Yes, there are very straightforward interaction laws that govern quantum electrodynamics and the emission and absorption of tuned microwave radiation by aperiodic crystals such as DNA (shown in the literature to act as a fractal antenna). Yes, yes, we’re all familiar with these things, so I’ll save the long screed on that topic.

    But there are things we are *not* so familiar with, e.g. the dipole properties of NADH oxidase, the enzyme that has been proven to react with cellphone radiation. Your reference Arthur says that, oh, this now needs further explication, you must explain your mechanism some more, is it the “N” in NADH oxidase, or is the “-ase” that resonates?

    The point is: the effect is *reproducible* and is reproduced daily in living human cell cultures in laboratories around the world. It is the reproducibility of the effect that allows researchers like Friedman et al. to work backwards, using the most basic element of all deduction — chronology — to identify the exact enzyme that is triggering this cascade. This cascade in turn causes the copious production of free radicals. This was what they were trying to explain in the first place, it’s all a backward exercise from a known phenomenon. The production of oxidative species in response to microwaves has been in the literature since the 1950s, there are hundreds-if-not-thousands of papers detailing this phenomenon. But there was no “mechanism”, according to the WHO, so all of this evidence can be safely ignored, and we only only only ever ever ever set thermal guidelines. Friedman et al. (2007) changed all that forever. It is just so very interesting that you so very quickly produce this one forlorn attempt at a counter-study or response of some indefinite kind to Friedman et al., it is so clear that the industry has no answer to this. Yet you manage to pull the one little study that tries, out of your magic hat.

    Low-level microwave radiation is carcinogenic and mutagenic, period. The industry established this for itself, you can check it out, the German mobile industry commissioned a thoroughly reputable environmental health consultancy that surveyed the literature and produced the ECOLOG report, released 2000, saying: this radiation is genotoxic, mutagenic, teratogenic, neurotoxic, and a few other choice -ics. This got completely buried, of course, but this was the industry’s own paid-for advice on the issue. They can’t say they didn’t know. Their industry motto is “Only Ignorance Is Invincible”, but they actually cannot say that they didn’t know, because they commissioned the research themselves. I’ll bet their insurers will not be happy to hear this.

    This whole false dichotomy, there’s “ionising” radiation with this terrible “rip DNA molecules apart” image, you put it so well, and then there’s nice, gentle “non-ionising” radiation that will warm you ever so slightly and that’s absolutely all it will ever do, no matter that it’s tuned to resonate with your body parts (fingers, bridge of nose, eyeballs, penis — check out Niels Kuster’s radiation crash test dummies) — and operating on biological frequencies with which our bodies are proved to become entrained, like brainwaves — all these frequencies and their harmonics playing on an exquisitely tuned biological organism with specific “extracellular signal-regulated” cascades, that *just happen* to be triggered by your healthful microwave radiation (according to Interphone, it *is* healthful, they say using a cellphone for *less than* 27 minutes a day will give you significant protection against brain tumours — no signs of gerrymandering of data here, no no).

    So again, @quax, you are definitely producing the industry line pitter and patter as if to the manner born, but my question is: where are you getting this info from? You hit that “I Feel Lucky” button on Google? It’s never worked for me.

    Dr Jill Stein has also just changed the game, and I’m really interested in seeing what pops out of the churn & you stick out for reasons that would only be obvious to the dedicated monomaniacal single-issue obsessive. There is a concerted campaign to brand Dr Stein as some kind of woo (quote) on science. This seems to be the biggest issue “they” are trying to pin on her, this is so interesting, when she’s just appointed a running mate who calls the United States a “corrupt, degenerate, white supremacist monstrosity” in the middle of a simmering race war threatening to explode — what “they” really think is important to tell voters is: ooooh, Jill Stein said something about vaccinations? Please, the pulleys and levers are showing a bit too clearly here, folks.

    And be careful: if you lift the lid on this issue, we get to the Telecoms Act of 1996 signed by Bill Clinton that destroyed Americans the right to make one peep about cellphone masts — astonishing, how the FCC was allowed to destroy all First Amendment rights to free speech in this regard. Go check it out, if a cellphone tower is within FCC guidelines, the very worst guidelines in the whole world, you’re not allowed to say anything about any possible health problems, or rather, what you say will simply not be considered. It’s worded a bit more fancily than that, but it is one of the most vicious — and viciously implemented — restrictions on free speech on a public health issue. Thanks, Bill Clinton.

    John McCain was one of only five Senators, and the only Republican, who voted against this Act. This was why I, with long history on the left, recommended in 2008 that Americans voted for him rather than Barack Hussein Obama Jr. Obama was the protege of Zbig Brzezinski, the man who in the 1970s published a book on the “technotronic society”, predicting that carefully timed wireless electronic pulses would be used to control the brainwaves of large swathes of the population. He was quoting a science adviser to Lyndon Johnson on environmental warfare. Zbig said: you may not like us using the environment as an instrument of war, but it’s going to happen. Get used to it.

    So you see, if you are a monomaniacal one-issue obsessive, it was easy to see that Barack Hussein Obama Jr was going to be bad, bad news. I’m still very proud that I spotted him first time. As the world erupts in flames, we can see just what kind of peace this Nobel Peace laureate hath wrought.

    This time around, it is a little easier. Dr Jill Stein’s comments were completely unrehearsed and they show that she is by far the most informed, sensitive and aware candidate on this absolutely crucial issue we have ever seen. Your children are displaying ranges of pathology that are beyond anything one can even begin to comprehend. Your CDC says that one in 68 of your children is now in the “autistic spectrum”. That is a national calamity on a scale that can only be grasped by a school teacher, like myself, who knows what a nightmare just *one* such child can create in a classroom, let alone whole classrooms filled with such kids, lined up at break and all given Ritalin or Concerta. This is exactly why I quit teaching.

    So be warned: I will fight literally to the death for Dr Jill Stein, just for this little snippet she once said. You only have to say things once, for the monomaniacal single-issue environmental health obsessive. Be warned. You can call us any name you like, the tinfoil hat crazy is the very epitome of the post-modern whack job, we’re totally used to it; but if you start saying “anti-science”, then *your* cred is on the line. Because radiation is our religion, and reading the literature is our daily practice — and editing it, especially statistical literature, is how I earn my daily bread. Any time you want to talk heteroskedasticity, you call me.

    You claim to have any cred in this area? Or just an instant expert in anything you talk about? @quax ?

  • quax

    Look buddy, there are some very straightforward interaction laws that describe what radiation does. The dipole interaction at these frequencies heats, but it can not rip DNA molecules apart such as much higher energetic ionizing radiation. To say it can without evidence is scientifically unsound.

    Pathway activation should be studied, and I am happy to accept wherever sound science takes us, but I doubt you approach this in the same vein.

    But feel free to write another multi-page screed.

  • Karl Muller

    This is a very interesting comment, herr quax.

    (a) Why is it suddenly so important to demand specific evidence that WiFi causes DNA damage, rather than microwave radiation in general? Because every single frequency you choose within the spectrum has its own set of issues. For example, the window around 900MHz — the first GSM band — is very close to the window used by surgeons for medical diathermy, where they use focused microwaves to burn away lesions in the brain. In fact, the best frequency for burning meat, like brain tissue, is not given to the microwave oven makers or the surgeons, but to the mobile phone engineers. The Motorola engineer Robert C Kane speculated in his book “Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette” that the choice of 900MHz for the first cellphones was influenced by the existing technology from surgical applications. That is what happens when you put engineers in charge of health decisions. The very frequency that is best for burning the brain, is used for a radiating device that you hold against your head.

    There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific studies showing irreparable double-strand DNA damage, chromosomal abnormalities, micronuclei formation (known to be carcinogenic), damage to DNA in ovarian follicles of mammals (i.e. genetic damage passed down the female line in the mitochondrial DNA that will persist for the entire future of the species) — but suddenly WiFi is special, we must prove specifically that WiFi is carcinogenic. All right. Got it. On the case. There is already specific evidence of cognitive impairment from WiFi, but forget that, the only thing that counts is the big C, cancer. Got it. Got it long ago. Game plan.

    (b) You speak of “triggering pathological pathways” and give a reference to a really obvious, desperate attempt by the “status quo” scientists to downplay Friedman et al.’s findings. Now, Friedman et al. actually say nothing whatsoever about cancer or anything else like this. Friedman is very careful not to say one word beyond his brief — but the brief includes cellphone radiation. And the activation of specific biochemical pathways.

    Oxidative stress (as demonstrated in human living cells) is a known cause of genetic damage and cancer. Full stop. There’s no argument about this. It’s a cause of severe neurological disorders of all kinds. It’s a cause of major metabolic issues — the kinds of things that result in diabetes and obesity. Nora Volkow, one of the heap-biggest blackest-belt US researchers, showed that there is drastic increase of glucose metabolism in the side of the brain that is exposed to cellphone radiation. This really was a shattering finding, just from its source. But she says: the clinical implications are unclear. And so everyone says, like this study playing down Friedman: “Further work will be required to assess the potential pathological role of these findings.” Always, always, trot out an academic who will say, tut tut, this must be replicated, there is no mechanism, this is not proven to be pathological. Keep stalling. Then find people who will post these online. But you do not look like an ordinary #WirelessIndustryTroll @quax which is why I’m spending a little time on you.

    (c) What is critical is not the “triggering of pathological pathways”. It is the *pathological triggering* of *perfectly normal* pathways. Now, please note, that there is no argument about Friedman’s findings: 120 seconds of cellphone radiation at non-thermal levels activates the ERK cascade and floods the cell with free radicals. Is this pathological? Well, the question is: when is the ERK cascade active naturally, organically, in the body?

    Please search “long-term potentiation” in the brain. This is the process by which the brain literally hard-rewires itself in response to repeated signals. This hard-rewiring, in which the synapses are joined in new configurations in response to repeated brainwave patterns, is why you can tell a musician’s brain at a glance (according to Oliver Sacks) — the repetitive exercises lead to a highly developed cerebral cortex. Now, if you even look at the Wiki page on long-term potentiation, you will see that what is absolutely central to this highly complex process is the extracellular signal-regulated kinase or ERK cascade, the *exact one* that Friedman et al. proved is initiated by two minutes of cellphone radiation. Now, when pulsed, this radiation is also *known* to induce brainwave changes. So here you have a “signal” from outside the cell that (i) entrains brainwaves — and everyone accepts this, that this radiation affects brainwaves for hours, but of course the WHO says there is no proof that this is “pathological” — and (ii) amazingly, also triggers the hard-wiring mechanism of the brain that will wire the synapses into place to form a permanent resonant system for these precise signals. Or else just hash up the whole process by which our brain rewires itself. You can try to argue with me, but I can assure you there are biochemical labs researching this issue right at this very moment. Let’s see what they find.

    My point: it is not the “triggering of pathological pathways”, pal. Don’t try slip that one past us. It is the *pathological* triggering of *perfectly healthy* pathways. And in this case, the precise pathway that is being triggered, is the one that (among other things) hard-wires the brain, where brain hardware and software actually evolve toward each other, in a dynamic architecture that is very far from fully understood. But we sure know how to mess it up: kids putting cellphones against their skulls.

    (c) Suddenly, something in all this appears to “discredit” Prof Olle Johansson, who is a dermatologist particularly investigating inflammatory conditions of the skin caused by microwave radiation. It was Olle back in the 1970s who first diagnosed skin disorders caused by the old cathode-ray computer screens, leading to shields being put in place to protect secretaries. He found that people with an excess of “mast cells” in their skin are highly sensitive to microwave radiation, and suffer a wide variety of inflammatory symptoms, including disabling rashes. I have investigated many cases of this, with doctor’s letters and extensive dermatological testing, with absolutely no cause detected — yet the moment these people moved away from broadband masts, their rashes dissipated. It is an irony that people with an excess of “mast cells” suffer from radiation from “cell masts”. Nonetheless, this is the clinical reality; and Prof Johansson derives his 3% figure from dermatological evidence. I just quote it from one of the many, because it is so clearly clinically based.

    Yet, immediately, it is somehow used to discredit him in some way. The point is: we are talking about *cancer*. Remember, the big C? And inflammatory conditions have long, long known to be associated with cancer. This is why mast cells are important, and mysterious, because they play such a double role, because inflammatory processes are incredibly important in protecting the body. Like the production of heat shock proteins from cellphone radiation, a known fact proved by Dariusz Leszczinksi of the Finnish radiation authority — research for which he himself says Nokia got him fired — this inflammatory process is actually the body over-protecting itself, and exhausting itself and making itself vulnerable to cancer.

    You take a careful look at the work of Prof Olle Johansson, about to be fired by Karolinska Institute because of his inconvenient truths, when Karolinska covers up its own scandals and researchers who blatantly fake results and build careers on lies.

    So, an interesting post, quax. I hope this addresses some of the issues you raise, thanks sincerely for raising them. I am really interested in how you got to the paper by Arthur that you quote, trying desperately to downplay Friedman et al. (2007) [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17456048]. There are 217 studies now quoting Friedman et al., and I have checked directly with Dr Joseph Friedman, not a single one of these has found any flaws or issues with the findings; nor indeed does Arthur. These further studies have only amplified and extended Friedman et al.’s findings. It is now an established, working, reproducible fact in biochem labs all over the world, that two minutes of ordinary cellphone radiation will trigger this particular cascade, the whole process traced back to one single enzyme, NADH oxidase, which is sensitive to microwave radiation. This is as fully worked-out a mechanism as anyone could wish for. This enzyme is ubiquitous in cell biochemistry. It is of desperate urgency for the industry to play this finding down, hence this study. Thank you for drawing our attention to it. The author, Simon Arthur, is funded directly by the Medical Research Council, the UK’s top government agency. So this is the straight official line: must downplay any possibility of a cancer link and insist that more research is necessary. Got it.

    Now: what precisely, out of all the studies referring to Friedman et al., drew you to *this* one, quax? Can you explain? I don’t see you as a diligent student of microwave news in your previous posts, so how did you suddenly get so informed on this issue? Google throw up something quick at you? When I look at those 217 references, I see a lot about the genotoxicity of microwaves, but Arthur’s paper does not jump out of the pack. How did you manage to spot it, old sport?

  • Bill_Perdue

    The DNC has issued marching orders and now that Sanders has completely neutered himself, is going after Stein. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/05/85477/

  • quax
  • quax

    http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/56847_en.html

    There is some danger from prolonged cell phone usage, when holding the device right next to your skull.

    But DNA damage from WiFi is far fetched to say the least. The argument seems to be the triggering of pathological pathways, but even then this should not lead to actual DNA damage. This statement more than anything else discredits Dr. Johansson.

  • ANB2015

    Especially if it involves a centrifuge.

  • Snarki, child of Loki

    It’s extremely painful, I’m sure.

  • Karl Muller

    Anhvinh Doanvo: You really should not say a single word about a subject you clearly know nothing about. You say that there are no animal studies showing danger from wifi (i.e., low-level microwave radiation). There are a rock-bottom minimum of 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers showing a vast range of biological and health effects. However, authorities like the WHO say there is “no mechanism” that can explain these effects, therefore *all* these studies are ignored. That is just the reality.

    The WHO’s former radiation chief, Dr Michael Repacholi, showed years ago that low-level microwaves raised cancer rates in rats by over 200%. He spent the rest of his career pooh-poohing his own findings.

    Motorola Lab’s chief Dr C-K Chou, who made a career out of denying the existence of any problems, also found drastically increased cancer rates in rats years ago and buried this research. The details are in the following press release, which highlights a literally fraudulent paper Chou published recently, in which data was blatantly manipulated to obtain industry-friendly findings:
    http://bit.ly/2aX9hqp

    Chou now seems to be blaming his co-author Kenneth Foster for the overt bias in this paper. Foster refuses to answer emails, but is apparently writing another paper to explain how he gerrymandered this one. It’s all so corrupt you can’t believe it.

    The National Toxicology Program recently released preliminary findings showing 3% of rats exposed to low-level microwave radiation succumbing to two specific cancers: gliomas (brain tumours) and a tumour equivalent to an acoustic neuroma. Multinational studies such as Interphone found a straight 100% increase in brain tumours in people who used a mobile for more than 27 minutes a day for 10 years (this was finally beaten down to a 40% increase, with adjustments that meant that all lower mobile phone usage rates now appear to be “protective” *against* brain tumours). Other studies (e.g. CERENAT and Lennart Hardell) find the same thing. The other tumour type linked to this radiation is acoustic neuroma. The exact tumours found in humans, were found in rats.

    Over and over, scientists have given a figure of 3% of the population as a minimum that is sensitive to this radiation. Prof Olle Johansson of Karolinska Institute showed that people with an excess of mast cells (inflammation-promoting cells) in the skin that are sensitive; and that this amounts to a minimum 3% of the population. This figure is not a thumb suck, like their radiation guidelines. Here we have the most comprehensive and extended cancer study on rats ever, and it produces the same 3% cancer rate.

    And here you say, there is no evidence. Please, do at least the tiniest bit of research before you open your big mouth.

    There is a guy called Alexander Lerchl who has spent years and years persecuting anyone who said that wireless was in any way harmful. Recently he produced his own study showing that this radiation was carcinogenic: http://microwavenews.com/news-center/rf-animal-cancer-promotion
    — this is a bit like Hillary Clinton saying Donald Trump was right all along, just more so. There’s a guy who saw which way the wind is blowing.

    The WHO’s very biggest and staunchest “there is no problem” researcher, Leeka Kheifets, produced a paper showing that mothers who used mobiles excessively showed a 50% increase in severe behavioural problems in kids (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/733952). That is a vast increase in a world that is already seeing drastic problems with kids: epidemic ADD, epidemic autism (1 kid in 68 in the USA, according to the CDC), epidemic suicides, epidemic eating disorders, epidemic sleeping disorders, you name it. I am a qualified education researcher, I’m telling you flatly there are drastic problems with your kids. There is Yale research on rats that shows exactly the same thing. You better wake up, Anhvinh Doanvo. Then *shut up* about things you know *nothing about*. Then *go vote for Dr Jill Stein*, if you want your children to have any brains left at all.

  • ANB2015

    Lincoln was a US Senator in 1860.

  • ANB2015

    Yes, she has issues. Baseless issues.

  • ANB2015

    How do you unvax?

  • Chris Bothma

    The world of medicine is complex and it is alway amusing how laymen will casually dispute the recommendations of scientists that spend decades studying and experimenting.

    Scientists world-wide are calling for for the immediate adoption of a precautionary principle, saying they do not agree with the European Commission’s conclusion from the Public Hearing of the Preliminary Opinion on Potential Health Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) in March this year and that more research needed to be done

    Danish doctor Helge Volkmann “Both industry and authorities lean upon studies, financed by the mobile communication industry, showing no dangers. But we have hard evidence that mobile signals can cause cancer”

    Lower radiation limits have already been studied and proposed in Vienna, Austria and in Brussels, Belgium.

    France legislated in March last year to discourage Wi-Fi in schools until it is considered “safe for human consumption”

    The French national library along with other libraries in Paris and a number of universities have removed all Wi-Fi networks and they have also been totally removed from schools in the town of Herouville-Saint-Clair

    In Israel, the Israeli Ministry of Education has stopped the installation of wireless networks in classrooms prior to the first grade in 2013 and limited the use of Wi-Fi between first and third grades. Israeli teachers are now required to turn off mobile phones and WiFi routers when they are not being used.

    Germany recommended its schools use cabled computers instead of Wi-Fi as far back as 2007.

    To quote Daanish scientist Danish scientist Dr Olle Johansson
    “Even electromagnetic fields at levels of only 1/100,000th of what we are regularly exposed to from mobiles, are found to disturb the complex electrical operations taking place at cellular levels, and to cause damage to DNA, proteins, neurons and oxidation processes.In spite of this, we have allowed an electrosmog of an almost unimaginable dimension to develop.

    Calling for Wi-Fi to be discontinued worldwide, he warned: “It is going to affect future generations, and the time to act is now.”

  • This is not true. She is not anti-vax. She has issues with the FDA and its ties to corporate interests.

  • Snarki, child of Loki

    The WORST part about the Stein campaign is how she forces her supporters to un-do and reverse their previous vaccinations. Because “nature” and “purity”.

    Humanity has ALWAYS been at war with the Microbes. Stein is a Species-Traitor.

  • devildog21

    There was this one guy who did that. Until he became president one time. Now what was his name? Oh yeah! Abraham Lincoln.

  • DoverBill

    WiFi?

    Dear Doofus,

    Do ya have any idea how many photons are instantly bombarding your eyeballs that are traveling on wavelengths that even Keneth couldn’t imagine?

    Even electrons travel on wavelenghts.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgE_Ffc4I8A

  • Jill Stein isn’t a politician of any kind. She’s a whackjob former doctor who glommed onto the idea of scamming gullible far-left radicals out of their money and votes.

  • AKRNC

    Stein is as unprepared as Trump to hold national office, especially as leader of the free world. You don’t start as President, especially with their background that holds little to no preparation for such a position. Stein is also sounding as looney as Trump at times. Why does she think she’s qualified? That’s what I’d like to hear her answer.

  • emjayay

    Are you really a “politician” if you run for all kinds of offices all the time and don’t ever win one?

© 2017 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS