Radiation from CT scans linked to cancers, deaths

By Liz Szabo, USA TODAY

CT scans deliver far more radiation than has been believed and may contribute to 29,000 new cancers each year, along with 14,500 deaths, suggest two studies in today's Archives of Internal Medicine. One study, led by the National Cancer Institute's Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, used existing exposure data to estimate how many cancers might be caused by CT scans.

Another study in the journal suggests the problem may even be worse. In that study, researchers found that people may be exposed to up to four times as much radiation as estimated by earlier studies. While previous studies relied on dummies equipped with sensors, authors of the new paper studied 1,119 patients at four San Francisco-area hospitals, says author Rebecca-Smith Bindman of the University of California-San Francisco. Based on those higher measurements, a patient could get as much radiation from one CT scan as 74 mammograms or 442 chest X-rays, she says.

Young people are at highest risk from excess radiation, partly because they have many years ahead of them in which cancers could develop, Smith-Bindman says. Among 20-year-old women who get one coronary angiogram, a CT scan of the heart, one in 150 will develop cancer related to the procedure.

Not all doctors agree about those risks. Scientists have not yet determined whether low doses of radiation actually increase cancer risk or whether the risk rises only after exposure levels reach a certain threshold, says James Thrall, chairman of the American College of Radiology.

He says it's also tricky to compare cancer rates between people who have had CT scans with those who haven't. People undergoing scans may have underlying health problems that predispose them to cancer, he says.

In many cases, CT scans can be lifesaving. In other cases, there's no evidence a CT scan is really better than other approaches, Smith-Bindman says. Up to one-third of all CT scans are unnecessary, according to an accompanying editorial by Rita Redberg, also of UCSF.

Doctors sometimes order CT scans for convenience because they don't have access to results at another facility, says Rosaleen Parsons, chair of diagnostic imaging at Philadelphia's Fox-Chase Cancer Center, who wasn't involved in the new studies.

She suggests that patients keep their medical records and ask doctors about alternatives that don't involve radiation exposure.

She says patients also should ask if a facility has been accredited by the American College of Radiology.

About eight weeks ago, USA Today reported on two research studies published in the December 15 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine revealing that CT scans deliver far more radiation than previously believed.  In fact, the scans may actually be responsible for nearly 30,000 cancers each year and 14,500 deaths.

One study, led by researchers from the National Cancer Institute, estimated the number of cancers that might be caused by the scans.  The other study found that patients undergoing the scans may be exposed to up to four times more radiation than previously estimated.  Researchers studying 1119 patients at four San Francisco-area hospitals concluded that one CT scan could expose a patient to as much radiation as 74 mammograms or 442 chest X-rays.

Young people are at highest risk from excess radiation, partly because they have many years ahead of them during which radiation exposure can damage cellular DNA.  For example, among 20-year-old women undergoing one coronary angiogram (CT scan of the heart), one in 150 will develop cancer specifically related to the procedure.

Of course, not all doctors agree -- especially radiologists, but Dr.  Rita Redberg of the University of California at San Francisco wrote "up to one-third of all CT scans are unnecessary."  Dr. Rosaleen Parsons of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia suggests patients ask their doctors about alternatives that don't involve radiation exposure.  We couldn't agree more.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Caused by EMF? - Doctors in Japan may be reluctant to diagnose Alzheimers

CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME (CFS) AND ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION

EMFs from Electric Wiring & Appliances a factor in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)?
Pollution of all types affects the body - pollution we can smell, see and hear.

One of the more controversial pollutants, however, is entirely invisible: electromagnetic fields (EMFs). While we may live a long, healthy life with no ill effects from electromagnetic fields, if we are unwell these fields could be a factor working against our recovery. In the first instance they should be kept to a minimum in order to give the body the best chance of healing. There are ways the fields can be detected and measured and steps can be taken to reduce the exposure in the home and work environment.

Read More

MAJOR REPORT ON THE EFFECTS OF EMF RADIATION AND RECOMMENDATIONSTO REDUCE EXPOSURE

This is the most comprehensive discussion on the subject we've found yet.

A major new report on EMF (electromagnetic fields), the BioInitiative Report, has been produced and published by David Carpenter and Cindy Sage. Lou Slesin, editor of the authoritative Microwave News website, greeted it this way: August 29... An international group of researchers has thrown down the gauntlet. The BioInitiative Working Group is challenging the EMF power structure to set much stricter exposure standards for power lines, cell phones, cell towers and other sources of electromagnetic radiation. "'Business as usual' is unacceptable," says David Carpenter, the director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at New York's University of Albany, on releasing the working group's extensive report. Its general conclusion is that there are many biological effects at levels that are well below current standards and that the "existing safety limits are inadequate to protect public health." Carpenter and Cindy Sage, a consultant based in Santa Barbara, California, coordinated the BioInitiative group and edited the report.

BioInitiative Report from the University of Albany, New York
"A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)"
Twenty scientists and researchers from around the world reviewed over 2,000 studies on EMFs. They found a link between EMFs, cancer and other health problems.
From their August 31, 2007 press release:
"An international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative Working Group) has released its report on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and health. They document serious scientific concerns about current limits regulating how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life.
"The report concludes the existing standards for public safety are inadequate to protect public health."

Among the group's key recommendations are:

a 1mG limit for homes where children and/or pregnant women live;
a "precautionary limit" of 0.1μW/cm² (0.6V/m) for RF exposures where "people live, work and go to school."

These proposed levels are on the order of 1,000 times more stringent than current limits adopted by ICNIRP (International Commission on Non- Ionizing Radiation Protection) and the IEEE's ICES (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers' International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety). All 21 sections of the report are available as free downloads from the BioInitiative website at www.bioinitiative.org. Michael Lerner, Founding Partner

The BioInitiative Report and Recommendations

Russians Advise Limiting Exposure to Cell Phones and EMF Radiation

Note: While the most of the US is saying there is no danger, Russia and a number of European countries are warning children, pregnant women and people with various illnesses and conditions not to use cell phones. Do they know something we don't? Are they simply more cautious? Would it be a good idea for us to be equally cautious? We believe so. Since EMFs come from all sources around us, not just our cell phones, we believe wearing a Shield will provide protection from these harmful emissions.

Powerwatch 09/01/2007 -

It is interesting to note that a country that has put as much time and effort into researching the possible health effects of microwave radiation exposure have far more precautionary guidelines on the subject than we do in the UK. We have included a summary below on their mobile phone advice:

The RNCNIRP (Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) offers the following advice on the safe use of mobile phones. These recommendations are based on the precautionary principle of the World Health Organization, published scientific and medical studies, reviews and recommendations by scientific groups and the expert opinions of RNCNIRP members.

1. Children under the age of 16 should not use mobile phones.
2. Pregnant women should not use mobile phones.
3. Those suffering from following diseases and disorders should not use mobile phones: neurologic diseases such as neurasthenia, psychopathy, psychosteny, and all neurosis with asthenic, obsessional hysterical disorders and reducing of mental, physical activity, memory loss, sleep disorders, epilepsy and epileptic syndrome, epileptic predisposing
4. The duration of calls should be limited to a maximum of three minutes, and after making a call the user should wait a minimum of 15 minutes before making another call. The use of headsets and hands-free systems is strongly encouraged.

Manufacturers and retailers of mobile phones should include the following information together with the engineering specifications:

• all of the above recommendations regarding use;
• all relevant health and epidemiological data on mobile phones, together with the radiation exposure levels associated with the phone and the name of the measurement lab.

Do the Russians know something we don't, or are they just making a pro-active attempt to pre-emptively protect their population from possible effects?

We strongly recommend Shields for Babies and children, adults, too, should wear a  BioElectric Shield EMF Protection device. Use headsets and other devices on your cell phones to reduce the radiation exposure.

Many reports are saying that electromagnetic radiation is safe - but does this safety factor change based length of cumulative time of exposure?

Dose-response and non-linearity

The orthodox response to whether any electromagnetic environment is ‘safe’ is to measure it. And since there are many ways to measure (averaging, peak, spectrum analysis, structure, pattern etc.) one goal is to produce a personal dosimeter to map exposures over time more comprehensively. All this can achieve, however, is a specific illustration under certain parameters. It cannot be concluded from any such measurement that if an FM radio station signal has a higher average signal strength at a particular location than a UMTS signal, the latter is less harmful, or that by comparison with ICNIRP reference levels for ‘safe’ exposure over six minutes, complaints of sleep disturbance attributed to the arrival of such a source must be psychosomatic. Hypotheses of ‘safe dose’ are notoriously full of broad and unwarranted assumptions.

Why is this important?

• With regards to heating damage from microwave radiation, a raw energy absorption effect is fairly linear. Protective guidelines (eg ICNIRP) are therefore straightforward to devise, and specific absorption rates (SAR) can be quoted for individual mobile phones.
• For long-term low-level chronic exposure to EM Fields, however, the effects are in all likelihood dependent on multiple factors such as power, frequency (for penetration, but also coincidence with functional bio-frequencies), co-factors, and susceptibility in any one of several biological functions. It really isn’t easy!
• Clearly it is not enough to use energy absorption guidelines for frequency effects, but it would seem important to see if there is a level of environmental microwave radiation (for example) that can be considered safe for everyone. But is there a straightforward dose-response ratio?
• Read more about electro-hypersensitivity (EHS)

Force equals mass times acceleration. F = M × A. Newton’s second law of motion.

In so many situations it appears that the more you put in the more you get out; there is proportionality. Such relationships are so common that it is easy to presume everything is like this. Sometimes the relationship is inverse; sometimes it is in a straight ratio (linear). Sometimes the relationship is (as in population expansion) exponential, whilst at others there is a curved distribution or ‘window’ – a range within which the greatest effects occur.

Is a linear dose-response true of toxins and pharmaceutical drugs? No, it isn’t. Some toxins are most potent at very low levels and not proportionately worse at higher levels. Many medicines will kill you at high doses. One reason for this is that their effects are not singular: they interact on many systems simultaneously. One effect may limit an imbalance while another creates an imbalance, and providing the dose causes one much more than the other, what might be a toxin is instead a medicine.

Dose-response may also be bi-phasic or even multi-phasic: in other words a low dose is insufficient to trigger a protective response to a cumulative effect, a medium dose may induce an over-reaction, and a high dose may match (and counteract) the harmful agent, until a point of being overwhelmed by it is reached.

Finally, there is the threshold effect (where a cause has no effect below a certain value), and the ‘rain-barrel’ effect (where an accumulation of effects eventually becomes too much and overflows).

Analogy: The accident and the vandals

Every now and then a vehicle leaves the road and ploughs through a garden wall. For a month, while insurance claims are cleared, there is a pile of stones and a hole in the wall. But before very long, the boundary is restored, the plants recover, and if you didn’t pass by around the time, you might never know what had happened.

In another neighborhood, local lay bouts seem to have nothing better to do than to pull stones off walls. Some owners repair each spate of damage straight away, because loose stones are easier to damage further. Some owners grow weary of the constant repair battle, or can’t keep up with the bills and effort, and soon a few bricks are followed by a few bricks, and a few more, and repair becomes a really big undertaking. Rubbish accumulates in the garden, dogs enter it and foul it, and even maintaining the garden becomes too much.

Which leaves the greater long-term damage? The vehicle? Or the few-stones-at-a-time yobs and the overwhelmed house owner?

• This analogy is given as a valid comparison between a large but short-term dose of electromagnetic radiation, from which the body may easily recover, and chronic exposure leading to constant free radical formation. Remember, among the effects of low dose EM fields are not just increased free-radical formation, but an impaired immune system.
  [More under health.]
• Resonance effects: calcium and potassium at cell membranes are sensitive to EM frequencies in non-thermal ways. Persistent exposure matters but is not a feature of any protective or precautionary guidelines.

Dose-response and electromagnetic fields

The concern therefore is to determine if, with all our pervasive wireless technology and power lines, appliances and machines, there is a safe level of electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (or indeed safe frequencies) with which to work. If so, how can we adopt and ensure safe levels? If not, what are the alternatives or consequences?

Neither EM fields nor living organisms are easy to assess, let alone their complex interaction. With living organisms dependent on extremely subtle electromagnetic messaging to maintain homeostasis, determining what frequencies, power levels and durations might lie behind consequences such as electro-hypersensitivity is very complex indeed. But what it is not, is a direct linear response to energy absorption, and in all likelihood it is not due to a single interaction mechanism.

Measurement and dose

Environmental EM fields can be measured in many ways, but to create a research base for any situation, every aspect must be recorded. What fields do people who claim adverse effects encounter in their average day? A personal dosimeter must record what frequencies and power levels are present on a time-sliced basis, but also it must record signal structures. For example, there is a difference between a 900MHz carrier wave and its 217Hz time-sliced pulse, or the 50Hz electricity supply and radiofrequencies riding on it. Fast, high but recurring transients must not be missed. Ideally, such a dosimeter should be used with other devices that record physiological responses rather than a diary record of well-being, thus avoiding ‘over-awareness’.

Several factors make this kind of meaningful record difficult.

1. systems such as UMTS (3G mobile phones) use frequency-hopping, and recording these may be difficult
2. a dosimeter worn on one part of the body (eg waist) will not record peak doses (eg a mobile phone at the head)
3. the record is what the EM environment was like, not the person’s health, or which element was having a given effect (if any).

Is Ted Kennedy’s Cancer Linked to Cell Phone Use?

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 10:00 AM

Reported in both these papers, among others

By: Sylvia Booth Hubbard

Senator Ted Kennedy’s diagnosis of a malignant brain tumor is, once again, stirring debate over the safety of cell phones. Kennedy’s brain tumor, called a glioma, is the type critics have associated for years with the use of cell phones.

Prominent neurosurgeons have stated they do not use cell phones held next to their ears. “I use it on the speaker-phone mode,” said Dr. Vini Khurana, a prominent researcher and an associate professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University. “I do not hold it to my ear.” Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s chief medical correspondent and a neurosurgeon at Emory University Hospital admitted that, he too, used an earpiece.

CTIA – the Wireless Association and the FDA both say that studies show cell phones are not a health risk. Other experts disagree. They point to research that indicates a link between cell phones and three types of tumors: glioma (the type Senator Kennedy has); cancer of a salivary gland near the ear called the parotid; and acoustic neuroma, which is a tumor found near the ear. An Israeli study published last year found a 58 percent increase in risk for parotid tumors among people who relied heavily on their cell phones. And a Swedish study found the risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma doubled after ten years of heavy use.

Since cell phones are relatively new, there hasn’t been a chance for long-term studies that will settle the question of whether there is truly a link between cell phone use and brain tumors. Some critics express particular concern for children who begin using cell phones as kids and continue throughout their lives. “More and more kids are using cell phones,” said Dr. Paul Rosch, clinical professor of medicine and psychiatry at New York Medical College. “They may be much more affected. Their brains are growing rapidly and their skulls are thinner.”

Dr. Khurana admits that cell phones are convenient and can save lives in an emergency, but he says that “there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumors,” adding that malignant brain tumors are “a life-ending diagnosis.

“It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking,” he said.

BioElectric Shield Note: I think we all remember when smoking and asbestos was said to be safe.

AC Associated Content / Health

Many Studies Point to Cell Phone Cancer Risks Raised by Recent Warning from Pittsburgh Cancer Institute

Ted Kennedy's Cancer Diagnosis Also Increased Brain Tumor Questions and Concerns

When Senator Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a type of malignant brain tumor called glioma, people started talking about more than that news, as sad as it was. They also wondered about the link between cell phones, brain tumors and cancer. They weren't the only ones. There had been many studies conducted, all trying to determine the connection between cell phone use and cancer (see sources at end of article). More info about that is below. But what about the latest news?

The latest buzz and cell phone cancer news is centered on The Director of the Pittsburgh Cancer Center, Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, who recently added to the debate about cell phones and cancer risks when he warned his faculty and staff against using the phones frequently. He wanted them to actually limit their use. This didn't appear to be a cost-cutting move or an attempt to get staff to stop chatting on phones and pay attention to patients. No, Dr. Herberman's instructions seemed to be based on genuine concerns about the risk of cell phones causing cancer, even though studies are far from definitive about whether so-called cell phone cancer is real.

The doctor didn't seem willing to wait for more studies to come out. He sent out a memo to at least 3,000 of his staff, specifically directing them to keep the phone away from their heads because of possible brain cancer risks. Staff was also to keep the phones away from the heads of children and other patients. Children have developing brains, a potential reason for extra caution and care.

The connection between Senator Ted Kennedy, glioma, brain tumors, cell phones, cancer studies and The Pittsburgh Cancer Center warning

As mentioned above, Senator Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor after he had seizures and other symptoms. The type of brain cancer, glioma, has been the focus of many medical studies revolving around cell phones and cancer. Although results have differed, there are a fair number of doctors and medical researchers who've felt that the results were truly worrisome. They concluded that there could indeed be a significant and real risk of brain tumors for those using cell phones.

The bottom line? If Dr. Herberman is worried about the potential risk of cell phones, he is not alone. He isn't just some isolated doctor making headlines because he has cautioned his staff against using cell phones. Others have wondered about this before and researchers have been trying

Many aren't willing to wait until medical studies prove that cell phones cause cancer. They think the time to act is now.

One reason why? Many parents, myself included, know teens who walk around with cell phones practically glued to their ears. Children and teens have brains which are still developing, a fact apparently pointed out by Dr. Herberman. The issue seems to be the electromagnetic radiation which comes from cell phones. Could they cause cell phone cancer, especially brain cancer?

As a parent, I'm not willing to wait. Maybe I'm reacting too soon. But I'm paying heed to this, Ted Kennedy's brain cancer and Dr. Herberman's warning. I'm going to be limiting my son's use of the cell phone. I don't expect to be very popular with him for the next few days. I'll take my chances.

Support for Dr. Herberman's warning about cell phones and cancer is by no means unanimous

There are plenty of people who disagree. Many studies and even the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) point to opposite conclusions. They indicate that the risk of getting cancer from cell phones is small. But when a director of the Pittsburgh Cancer Center cautions people against using cell phones, it is hard not to pay attention. Until I find out more, I want my son to limit his use of the phone. However, it is worth noting that a review of studies and information about cell phones and cancer studies is worth pursuing. Those studies are too numerous to describe in detail here.

What you need to know about cell phones, cancer and brain tumors

If cell phones can cause brain cancer, electromagnetic radiation may be the cause. Cell phones are often used by placing them next to the head, possibly allowing this radiation to increase the risk of cancer - most notably, brain cancer and tumors.

Here is what I'm doing for now. While continuing to read everything I can on the subject, I'm also erring on the side of caution and that seems to be what the director of the Pittsburgh Cancer Center is doing as well. At the same time, it is only fair to note that aren't a lot of major centers issuing similar kinds of warnings. Also, opinions and the results of studies differ. However, unlike the videos which indicated that cell phones could make popcorn pop, there may be more potential for truth here. Cell phones may turn out to be linked to brain cancers, including rare glioma tumors like the one found in Senator Kennedy.

Sources
1. The Boston Globe, May 20, 2008, Globe Staff. Article: Senator Kennedy Diagnosed with Brain Tumor; Prognosis Seen as Uncertain
2. Glioma Brain Tumor: Senator Ted Kennedy -What Does it Mean?, Medicinenet.com, www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp
3. Studies about brain cell tumors and cell phone use from the American Journal of Epidemiology, summarized in Oxford Journals :aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/164/3/294
4.Pittsburgh Cancer Center Warns of Cell Phone Risks, ABC News (Borenstein and Yates), July 24, 2008: abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory

http://topics.cnn.com/topics/brain_cancer

Note from BioElectric Shield

When doctors start sending memos to their staffs warning them to limit their cell phone use, I think we should all pay attention. I'm not willing either to be part of the stats proving the dangers in 30 years.

Given all the times we've been misguided on dangers of other products it amazes me that so many people are willing to ignore the potential. This is a situation that can only grow over time.

We suggest multi-layer protection Waveshields on on your phones and headsets, limiting usage AND wearing a BioEllectric Shield to protect you from the cell phone Wi-Fi, Wi Max AND all the other technology bombarding you today.

Terahertz Waves:  Scientific Breakthrough or Impending Health Meltdown?

There is a new technology that has scientists positively giddy with excitement. 

As one article states “Over the last century, scientists have progressively explored and conquered the electromagnetic spectrum. Starting with visible light, and developing techniques for generating and detecting radiation at both higher and lower frequencies. As each successive region of the spectrum has been colonized, new technology has been developed to exploit the newly discovered radiation. For example, X-rays are used to image unseen objects with the visible light. Near-infrared radiation is used in fiber-optic communications and in compact-disc players, microwaves are used to transmit signals from mobile phone, etc.

But there is one part of the electromagnetic spectrum that has steadfastly resisted our advances. This is the terahertz region, which ranges from frequencies of about 300 GHz to 10 THz (10 x 10¹² Hz).”  The excitement is generated by many potential uses in medicine and industry.  Our question is – are they safe? How does our DNA feel about being bombarded by terahertz waves? The Technology Review, published by MIT, has the very same question!

Friday, October 30, 2009

How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA

A new model of the way the THz waves interact with DNA explains how the damage is done and why evidence has been so hard to gather

Great things are expected of terahertz waves, the radiation that fills the slot in the electromagnetic spectrum between microwaves and the infrared. Terahertz waves pass through non-conducting materials such as clothes, paper, wood and brick and so cameras sensitive to them can peer inside envelopes, into living rooms and "frisk" people at distance.

The way terahertz waves are absorbed and emitted can also be used to determine the chemical composition of a material. And even though they don't travel far inside the body, there is great hope that the waves can be used to spot tumours near the surface of the skin.

With all that potential, it's no wonder that research on terahertz waves has exploded in the last ten years or so.

But what of the health effects of terahertz waves? At first glance, it's easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging. Terahertz photons are not energetic enough to break chemical bonds or ionize atoms or molecules, the chief reasons why higher energy photons such as x-rays and UV rays are so bad for us. But could there be another mechanism at work?

The evidence that terahertz radiation damages biological systems is mixed. "Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none," say Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a few buddies. Now these guys think they know why.

Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they've found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. That's a jaw dropping conclusion.

And it also explains why the evidence has been so hard to garner. Ordinary resonant effects are not powerful enough to do this kind of damage but nonlinear resonances can. These nonlinear instabilities are much less likely to form which explains why the character of THz genotoxic effects are probabilistic rather than deterministic, say the team.

This should set the cat among the pigeons. Of course, terahertz waves are a natural part of environment, just like visible and infrared light. But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294: DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field

Our comment in response 1/15/10

Are we surprised?

Really? Why do so many of us continue to believe that toxic waves and chemicals are safe? Is it simply that we don't want to have to give up the "benefits" of all the new goodies? But at what cost?
Many people believe that since the link between technology and illness hasn't been conclusively proven, that there is no reason for concern. Reminds me of the 60s and the smoking issue.

We’ve been one of the original trail blazers in EMF protection and have been getting the word out since 1990.
We are so glad to have more information out there so that hopefully more of us will start to question and take steps to lessen the amount of exposure.
Carolyn

Full Signal - Documentary

There is a new documentary out about the proliferation of cellular technology and its impact.

Quote: “There is growing evidence that cellular technology is harmful to us. This has not been proven, but by the time it could be proven, it could be too late to do something about. So now is the time to err on the side of caution.”

Screenings are limited, check the website for times and dates.

We’re hoping the movie will be available as a DVD soon. When it is, we’ll let you know. Their website simply says “Advance sales coming in 2010”. http://fullsignalmovie.com/index.html

We’ve been in the forefront since 1990 telling people our technology is dangerous. People listen to intelligent, rational sounding people who speak out. As Shield wearers, we can be a mighty force for good! Please join us in spreading the word and helping people become protected - one Shield at a time.

Virginia & Carolyn, BioElectric Shield Co.

Genre: Documentary | Run Time: 61 minutes | Premiere: December 2009

Full Signal is about the proliferation of cellular technology across the globe. It has spread unabated like wildfire. More than half the world’s population owns a phone. And nearly everybody lives within the range of a cell tower. Yet nobody truly knows to what extent this technology has an impact on the human population.

Debates on the subject have ranged from scientific circles to the mass media to courts of law with opinions that are just as diverse. People are concerned about safety and security, technological advancement, health and the environment.

But an increasing number of studies are starting to correlate certain ailments with cellular technology, ranging from dizziness to tumors. Full Signal takes the position that it is highly unlikely that these scientist’s findings are all incorrect. The “Issue” section will feature an interactive page to help those interested in the facts hear them directly from the experts.

Since 1997 and the onset of GSM telephony, more and more cellular antennas have been popping up in neighborhoods all around the world to support an ever-growing number of cell phone users.

In fact they have become so prolific in some parts of the world that they disappear into the landscape with the same subtlety as cars on the street. And those that don't 'disappear' are cleverly disguised as chimneys, flagpoles, or water towers.

Full Signal talks to scientists around the world who are researching the health effects related to cellular technology; to activists who are fighting to regulate the placement of antennas; and to lawyers and law makers who represent the people wanting those antennas regulated.

Filmed in Ten countries and Six US states, Full Signal examines the contradiction between health and finance, one of the many ironies of the fight to regulate antenna placement.

http://fullsignalmovie.com/index.html

Enlightenment, Confusion, Frustration, and Enlightened Decisions.

October 22nd, 2009

The expansion of the film meant more interviews. This meant an enlightening wealth of information to build on what we already had in the film.

But with more interviews came more opinions. And this ultimately led to a tug-of-war between those that are for, and those that are against. Who do you listen to? Who is right and who is wrong?

But out of this confusion and subsequent frustration comes one bottom line:

There is growing evidence that cellular technology is harmful to us. This has not been proven, but by the time it could be proven, it could be too late to do something about. So now is the time to err on the side of caution.  (end article)

Link here to become an affiliate – you can earn money while recommending the product. Your goal might be to earn enough in commissions to GIVE a Shield to someone who needs it.

Update from director

On Jan 20, 2010, at 7:36 PM, Talal Jabari wrote:

Greetings all!

Let me start off with a reminder that we are kicking off the year with our first public screening at the Nyack Center in Nyack, NY this SUNDAY JANUARY 24th at 5 pm, with a Q & A session to follow.

Next month we will be back in the Great Plains for our Montana Premiere at the Big Sky Documentary Film Festival, followed by a public screening at the Hollywood Theater in Portland Oregon.

To get more information please visit our Upcoming Screenings on FullSignalMovie.com

In other news, we are pleased to announce that Full Signal has been awarded the Award of Merit from the Accolade competition, making it the film's second award in 2 months.

And finally, we have launched the Full Signal homepage in German at de.FullSignalMovie.com. And we owe a special thanks to Marco Buch for volunteering to do that for us.

I hope you week continues on a positive note and I look forward to seeing you at one of our upcoming screenings.

Best

Talal

Talal Jabari

Director

Full Signal (2009)

"AWARD of MERIT" Accolade Competition 2010

"BEST DOCUMENTARY" 5th Myrtle Beach International Film Festival

"OFFICIAL SELECTION" 7th Big Sky Documentary Film Festival, Missoula MT

"OFFICIAL SELECTION" 18th Environmental Film Festival, Washington DC

"OFFICIAL SELECTION" 10th Santa Fe Film Festival

Phone: +1 302 565-4948

Skype: captureproductions

FullSignalMovie.com

And check out our Facebook Page

NEWS 3/15/10

THERE ARE COUNTLESS ARTICLES IN THE MEDIA TODAY ON CELL PHONES AND ALL TYPES OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (EMF). THESE ARE JUST A FEW of the ones we feel are the most important.

Read more: Health News and Research