Wow who would of knew that cell phones were bad for your brain?

Cell phone radiation opens blood barrier after 2 mins of use.

http://www.emf-health.co...es-cellphones-cancer.htm

http://www.greenamerica....les/JanFeb2011/Davis.cfm

Tracy: I want to go back to the blood-brain barrier, because I thought that was so important when I read your book. Can you explain what it is, and how cell phone radiation affects it?

Dr. Davis: The blood-brain barrier is a natural barrier that protects the brain from undesirable materials that could enter it through the bloodstream.

I talked to Dr. Allan Frey for my book, who performed a study involving the blood-brain barrier with the Office of Naval Research. What he basically did was to take a rat, inject blue dye into its veins, and show that while everything else inside the rat turned blue, the blue dye didn’t get into the brain. That showed
we have a blood-brain barrier protecting the brain.

Then what he did was to perform the same experiment exposing the rat to a microwave-sized, pulsed digital radiofrequency signal before injecting the dye—and the brain turned blue. That was pretty powerful.

And then he was told by his superiors to stop working in that area if he expected to continue getting support for his research. Well, a pseudo-replication of this study was done by a group connected to industry where they injected the dye into the abdomen, not into the bloodstream. The brain, of course, didn’t turn blue, so they concluded that Frey was wrong. That’s the kind of misleading science that has characterized this field.

The blood-brain barrier work, by the way, is really relevant to Green America’s work on toxins. Since radio-frequency radiation weakens the blood-brain barrier, that means you will enhance the uptake of toxicants through the brain by using a cell phone. So all of our policies to protect us from toxins will do nothing if we do not also deal with this exposure.


Two new links. ^^

References?

Youtube is not a valid source.

We all knew this was going to happen. Hang up the phone and go live.

Yea I am very skeptical. Why wasn't this dye study published? Please don't say it was actively suppressed because I know thats total BS. You can publish anything you want as long as you have good data.

Dear Burnt,

sorry that´s not true.
When a study is performed by order and in account of a company,institution or person than the ordering party owns the copyright!!!
This means they can do what ever they want with the data, even suppressing it. This always happens when a pharmaceutical company orders a study for a new drug and the results are negative. Nobody will ever hear from that drug until the problems are fixed or the company changed the testing modalities to get a better outcome.

One even stranger example:
In 1989 a swiss dietican Dr. Hans-Ulrich Hertel found strong evidence for the negative effect of microwave ovens.
In march 1993 a swiss court in Bern denied his right for free speach because this could harm the swiss market and industry.
In 1994 the federal court in Lausanne approved the first court.
It took until august 1998 when the european court for human rights revoked these court decisions as unlawful.
Switzerland had to pay a 40,000 SF fine for that.
Journal of Natural Sciences, 1998; 1:2-7

In this case he had the right to talk about his own findings, nobody payed him for that.
And even here the industry tried to supress the facts. Several newer studies showed that Hertel is and was absolutely right.
only one example: American Journal of Epidemiology, 1994: 139: 903-9

Btw in the soviet union the use of microwave ovens was forbidden by law since 1976.

If I would jump into this discussion about cellphones I could easily explode that Post by listing hundreds of studys showing the negative effect of cellphones. The question is not if but how dangerous they are!
This is part of my day to day business so I´m very deep into that topic.

This world is sometimes a really strange place, where in the name of profit everything else goes overboard.

When I´m doing a journey I´m not only switching of my cellphone, I´m disabling my DECT cordless phone and the base station. In addition I would disable every wireless lan device specially the router, since they are transmitting all the time at full power.
I´m not working with wireless lan at all, because it is one of the worst sources of HF-radiation you can have in your environment.
Check it out the next time you travel you might be astonished by the good effects. And even if can´t feel a difference, what i doubt, it is simply better to have as little disturbing influences as possible.

greetings

Garfield

lol wireless lan?
you're worried about the HF radiation from wireless lan?
do you have any idea what the power output is on transmitters? not much
high energy radio waves of high amplitude have more potential for mutagenicity than those with low amplitude.

Take a look at this post.

I find that blood-brain barrier story highly implausible. It would mean that using a cellphone would flood your brain with all kinds of things we undoubtedly would feel amost immediately and would lead to serious symptoms that could even be acutely life-threatening.

Even if you throw away all your electrical things and barricade your door you cant
stop the immense amount of signals passing through your house and your body at
any given second. They are everywhere, the world is that connected!
...unless you have lead wallpaper maybe=)

or live in some sort of faraday cage

GAWD DAMMIT BENZYME!! I TOLD YOU TO STOP GIVING OUT MY BEDROOM SCHEMATICS!

idealy you'd also be protected against earthquakes. A bit like a survive-a-ball.

If i where to blast of my GVG in a faraday cage it would probably be this kind

Dear Benzyme,

first of all my statement was ment as a suggestion for a personal tryout. It works for me so perhaps for others too.

To your question: Yes as I wrote that´s part of my day to day business.
The output range is between 30mW to 500mW depending on device and frequency. This sounds small but if you go more into detail you´ll see that this is only a over the time avareged amount, means we are talking aubout pulsed signals with a burst output. Regarding the single burst peak can be up to a 100 times higher in amplitude!!!
And yes you are right the output of a high power radio or television transmitter is much higher starting from several kW up to hundreds of kW and even more in some special cases. But as you surely know the transversial EM-fields are weakening by the square of the distance(I hope I found the right translation). If you are measuring inside of your rooms your local wlan ist at least 10db higher than everything what´s coming from the outside. (Every 3 db you have a double in the amplitude!) Additionally the frequencies used here are nearly the same as the resonance frequencies of our inner organs.
And last but not least I´m not talking about mutagenic effects. Im talking about the effect on nervesignals and inter-cell communication, totally nonthermal effects. This is like noise or sand in your cars gearbox.


Dear gibran2,

thank you for the link to this list of possible influences, good work.
I think you´ll admit that some points in the list weigh stronger than others. If you have a sensitivity to EM-fields which a lot of people have my suggestion might be helpful.


Dear polytrip,

the studies DoctorMantus reffered to are not the only ones. Of course the blood-brain barrier isn´t opened like a flood gate.lol
It seems that the strict and selective properties of the barrier are weakened.


Dear imPsimon,

you´re right it´s not only impossible but also absolutely impractical to shield yourself totally off. I´m just talking about reducing as much as possible with as little effort as necessary.


Hope you get it right.

Garfield

http://thegreatamericand...ocumentary-facebook.html

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9407

Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family by Devra Davis, PhD is touted as a book about the issue of cell phones and health. It is instead a tract that conspiracy theorists will love that sheds no objective light on the often confusing scientific data in this area. The tag line on the jacket sets the tone: The TRUTH about cell phone RADIATION. What the INDUSTRY has done to hide it, and how to PROTECT your FAMILY. In the area of EMF and health, there are a certain number of studies that appear to find biological “effects”. This is perfect fodder for alarmists like Davis, who ignore the fact that virtually none of these “effects” have been reproduced in follow up studies. If you were expecting an objective review of the often confusing scientific data in this area, you should avoid this book.

Disconnect focuses almost exclusively on studies that support its alarmist conclusions while either ignoring or falsifying information about studies showing no harm. The quality of scientific studies varies greatly. Disconnect is highly selective and totally biased in discussing only studies that support its point of view, it rejects contrary studies accepted by the majority of mainstream scientists as the product of some vast conspiracy, and it completely misstates the findings of key studies that find no harm from cell phones. She interviewed only a relatively small group of dissident scientists who are outside of the mainstream. The book is completely lacking in objectivity.

Dear Mantus,

I don´t know this particular book, but I know several others on the european/german market.
And I agree with your standpoint. There are people on both sides trying to tell/sell you the truth. Spreading panic or downplaying.
The real truth is somewhere inbetween.
That´s why I wrote:
The question is not if but how dangerous they are!

Garfield

You would need to live in a Faraday cage as Benzyme points out. It would have to be very well bonded to a solid earth ground to be effective. Good bonding means a solid RF ground which usually takes several 8 foot long copper plated rods driven into ground that is kept moist. It would be an expensive proposition just to make sleeping quarters that were electrically quiet.

There are an increasing number of doctors that are proposing that the modulation is the real problem with signals such as cellular, cordless phone, and wireless networks. These docs claim that some of the modulation frequencies often are the same as those used in the brain and the body.

One has to wonder why 20th and 21st century man is so plagued with cancer as a predominate illness. Pesticides, heavy metals, chemicals used in processes foods, xenoestrogens, and EMI may all play a role.

It is damn difficult to avoid EM and all of the above.


PS: I want the tesla coil in the picture above.... It is nice!

Dear Garfield,

It would be interesting to study the effects of RF interference on EEG patterns; how they would
design such a study, I have no idea.

on a side note, a friend suggested to me that the excessive microwave RF across the US has a detrimental effect on the navigation of bees, causing them to lose their bearings back to their hives, and thus reducing the bee population. I don't know how accurate this assessment is (as opposed to other fatal factors like viruses), but it seems plausible

It seems very plausible that microwaves could be a factor to the reduction of bee population. The microwave definitely has a lot more RF than a cell phone and they also said somewhere that cell phones were effecting bees by the cell phone waves or signals or something like that.

Dear Benzyme,

such studies have been performed for example by Prof. Bardasano of the University of Alcalar de Henares, Spain(near by Madrid).
Will try to find a link.
They tested people with a calibrated hightech EEG in a Farady cage which was adjusted to let thru HF but no mid or low frequencies.
I think the "cutoff" frequency was about 300MHz (-18db). They made this in order to shield of other disturbing influences.
First test closed eye baseline for comparison.
Second test closed eye cellphone at the head listening to a monologue like the weather forecast.
Result: Significant increase in alpha and beta waves up to high beta over 50 Hz, when the cellphone was on.
A small part comes from the activity of listening.

I would do it in a different way:
instead of a simple closed eye baseline test I would suggest for better comparison using a ultra low radiation landline phone, listening to the same kind of monologue.

Regarding your friends suggestion, might be, who knows but also can be something totally different.
The problem with EMF and the testing of such effects is:
Deceases and for example the behavior of bees aren´t monocausal. So it is super easy to cheat just by adjusting the testing procedure. When you have knowledge in this field and you look on some studies specially performed for the industry it just let stand your hair on it. With a little knowledge you see that they never intended or tried to make a good scientific work. It´s just for propaganda. And the same is for the other side, but not so often and not so obvious.

Hope this helps.

Garfield