You're Only As Old As You Think You Are Yale School of Public Health
ome people lose strength and vitality when they get older, while others remain robust. The same disparity exists when it comes to eyesight, hearing and mental faculties.
Genetics and lifestyle can play a part, but to a surprising extent, what you think about aging does as well. To learn more, Bottom Line/Health recently spoke to Yale psychologist Becca Levy, PhD, a renowned expert in stereotypes related to aging...
How do stereotypes affect how we age? There are numerous ways, but let's look at hearing loss as an example. Most people consider it an inevitable fact of growing older, but there's more to it than biology.
In a study conducted at Yale, we measured the hearing of more than 500 adults age 70 and older and asked them what five words or phrases first came to mind when they thought of an old person.
Three years later, the people who associated aging with stereotypes like "feeble" and "senile" had suffered significantly more hearing loss than those who had answered with positive words like "wise" and "active." In other studies, negative thoughts or beliefs about aging were linked to poorer memory as the years passed.
Can one's recovery from serious physical ailments, such as heart disease, also be affected? Apparently so. In one study, we interviewed 62 heart attack patients (ages 50 to 96) about their stereotypes of aging within two weeks after their heart attacks.
Seven months later, patients who expressed more positive stereotypes had experienced better physical recoveries -- as measured by tests involving balance and timed walking -- than those who expressed more negative stereotypes.
Could a person's views on aging even affect his/her life span? One of our studies showed just that. It involved 660 people, ages 50 to 94, who were asked questions that explored the ways they perceived their own aging.
For example, the study participants, all of whom lived in Oxford, Ohio, were asked how much they agreed with statements, such as "Things keep getting worse as I get older" and "I am as happy now as I was when I was younger."
Nearly 25 years later, researchers tracked those participants who were still alive and how long the others had lived. Those who had expressed a more positive view when surveyed lived a median of seven years longer, even after differences in their ages and health at that time were taken into account. It held true for both men and women who were over age 60 as well as those who were younger.
How do researchers explain this phenomenon? There is no definitive explanation, but we think that several mechanisms are involved. Some are physiological and might well involve the harmful effects of stress on bodily systems.
Another piece is likely to be behavioral -- people who believe that aging means unavoidable memory decline, for example, quite possibly won't try as hard or as long to remember, and won't bother to apply strategies that could help. Similarly, people who think there's nothing that can be done about hearing loss probably aren't as quick to seek medical attention if they develop hearing trouble.
In the longevity study, we found that views on aging can affect an older person's will to live -- this explained, at least in part, the difference in survival. When you don't believe that the benefits of a long life will outweigh the hardships, you're less likely to follow a healthful lifestyle and seek treatments that prolong life.
What's the source of these stereotypes? Negative depictions of aging can be found everywhere -- from greeting cards to best-selling books to the media. We think television, in particular, has a major effect. We surveyed a group of people ages 60 to 92, who watched an average of 21 hours of television per week, and found that the more TV they watched, the more negative their beliefs were about aging.
The negative stereotyping most likely starts early -- for example, wicked witches in fairy tales are gnarled and wrinkled -- and sinks in deeply. Then, as aging occurs, some individuals start applying these negative beliefs to themselves.
Is it possible to change these beliefs? We've been able to show in the lab that they change quite readily in the short term. In one recent study, we tested how fast elderly people could walk -- a key measurement of frailty (a condition that includes exhaustion and weight loss as well as loss of muscle mass and strength).
Participants were randomly assigned to either a positive or negative age-stereotype group. We subliminally flashed words with positive connotations about aging, such as "wise," "alert" and "mature," to one group, and showed negative words, such as "senile" and "decrepit," to the other group.
Participants in the positive stereotype group walked significantly faster and demonstrated better balance than those in the negative stereotype group.
To a great extent, we don't question these stereotypes because we've absorbed them so completely that we're not even conscious of them. Becoming aware of their presence in everyday life is a first step toward questioning their validity.
What, specifically, can people do to fight these stereotypes? In the TV study, we asked participants to keep a journal describing the way that older people were represented. The participants were shocked to discover how often they were made the target of jokes, and that they were frequently omitted from programming. "It's like we're nonexistent," wrote one study participant.
In your own life, make a point to pay attention to more positive images of aging -- active, effective people in politics, the arts and the community, for example. I don't mean "superstars" who are jumping out of planes at age 80. It's too easy to write them off as exceptions that have nothing to do with you. Also, spend time with older role models, such as relatives and residents of your community, and learn about their strengths and contributions.
Doesn't this promote a falsely optimistic view? Not necessarily. It's more a matter of accepting that aging will involve a range of changes -- some are positive, some are negative... some are inevitable and some are malleable. It is important to recognize the many places where a realistic attitude and positive action can make a real difference.
Editor's note: More and more organizations are now promoting the accomplishments of older adults. One such program is the Purpose Prize, which provides $10,000 and $100,000 awards to people over age 60 who make significant contributions to society.
To learn more, contact Civic Ventures, a nonprofit think tank that promotes the achievements of older adults, 415-222-7486, www.leadwithexperience.org.
Bottom Line/Health interviewed Becca Levy, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology and psychology at Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Connecticut. She was the lead author of a recent study on stereotypes and aging, published in Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Science.
To choose to be your soul, you must be able to experience the difference between the soul and the egomind, and clearly know which state you prefer.
*1. Bring your awareness fully into the present moment. The soul enters the world, for you, through every particle of your body. These particles of soul force, or points of light, exist only in the present moment. If your mind projects into the past or future, you lose touch with the radiance and cannot experience your soul.
*2. Put your attention on and inside your body. Since the soul enters the world through every particle of your body, to know the soul you must merge your conscious mind and your body. Do that by placing attention on the body, then sink in. Let the body come alive with tingling and vibration, and experience how conscious it is. That awareness you encounter in the body is the first level of soul wisdom.
*3. Contemplate your core motives. Feel what you want deeply as though you're experiencing it. Then drop down through that by asking "Why do I want this?" Then, "Why does my soul want these things? What experiences do these things bring that my soul wants?" When you find the handful of core motives at the heart of what you do, you will feel what you're all about, and you'll respect and love yourself.
*4. Intentionally remember and reexperience times when your heart has been open. When you feel trapped by the egomind, ask yourself to recall times when you have felt grateful, amazed, or moved by heroism or egoless action. Picture wiggly puppies, smiling babies, or the shiny eyes of a lover. As you focus attention into these things, you will return to the state of awareness you were in then. When your heart is open, the resulting experiences are indicative of the soul.
*5. Intentionally shift into a state of cheerfulness, pleasure, enthusiasm, innocence, sincerity. Intentionally recall times when you felt generous toward life, were in a good mood, were open-minded and willing to learn, or were willing to be entertained or surprised. That open-minded neutrality and positive expectancy is a quality of the soul.
-- Posted By stars2man to now4u2 at 7/05/2008 05:40:00 PM
How To Change Measurement Units in Microsoft Word eHow.com: "Microsoft Word 2003 Step1Open Microsoft Word and start a new blank document, or open an existing document from your files. When you change the measurement units, they will be applied to your current document, as well as any other documents that you use in the future. Step2Choose the 'Tools' menu and click on 'Options…' to open the 'Options' dialog box. The options dialog box contains several tabs that all allow you to change settings within Microsoft Word. Step3Click on the 'General' tab in the 'Options' dialog box to view the general option settings in Microsoft Word. Step4Locate the 'Measurement Units' drop-down menu toward the bottom of the 'Options' dialog box. Step5Use the 'Measurement Units' drop-down menu to choose what type of measurement units you would like to use in Word. You can choose from 'Inches,' 'Centimeters,' 'Millimeters,' 'Points' or 'Picas.' Step6Select the 'OK' button to close the 'Options' dialog box and change the measurement units within Microsoft Word. Step7Notice that your rulers, as well as dialog boxes, will now use your newly selected measurement units."
--- On Sun, 6/29/08, Bottom Line Secrets <BottomLineSecrets@bls.bottomlinesecrets.com> wrote:
Generic Drug Dangers
Joe Graedon
Teresa Graedon, PhD
eneric drugs cost 30% to 80% less than their brand-name counterparts and most people feel safe taking them because the FDA requires that both types of medications provide the same active ingredients and level of effectiveness.
Recent development: A 2006 survey found that about 25% of 300 doctors throughout the US don't believe that generics are chemically identical to brand-name drugs... nearly one in five believe that generics are less safe... and more than one in four believe that generics cause more side effects.
So what's the truth about generic drugs?
WHAT PATIENTS SAY
Since 1976, when our book The People's Pharmacy was originally published as a consumer guide to drug and health information, thousands of patients have contacted us about their experiences with medications.
In the last few years, we've received hundreds of letters and E-mails -- most of them complaints -- about generic drugs, including pain relievers, antidepressants and blood pressure medicines. The number of such complaints has increased dramatically in that time.
What we've learned: Some patients who switch from a brand-name to a generic drug report a decline in effectiveness -- for example, blood pressure that isn't controlled as well or a worsening of depression. Others report having a rash or other types of allergic reactions, probably due to one of the inactive "filler" ingredients in generic drugs. There also seem to be problems with the timed-release mechanism of some generics.
Example: We've heard more than 100 complaints about a generic version of the long-acting anti-depressant Wellbutrin XL. At least one manufacturer's timed-release generic formulation appears to be different from the brand name -- and may be releasing too much of the drug too quickly (known as "dose dumping"). This would explain many of the side effects, such as headaches and anxiety, that some people tell us they experience when they take the generic drug, but not the brand-name version.
We've contacted the FDA about the complaints regarding this generic drug, and we're also working with an independent laboratory to analyze this formulation.
IS THE FDA DOING ENOUGH?
Drug companies must apply to the FDA to sell generic versions of drugs. To gain FDA approval, a generic drug must contain the same active ingredients as brand-name medications and meet the same criteria for such factors as quality, strength and purity. Possible problems with generic drugs...
Periodic checks for impurities. The FDA monitors generic drugs, testing for such things as proper dosing and active ingredients. But the agency only checks about 300 "dosage forms," such as tablets and capsules, among brand-name and generic products a year -- out of a total of more than three billion prescriptions.
Infrequent inspections. The FDA is supposed to inspect each US drug manufacturing plant every two years -- but lacks the resources to meet that requirement.
Overseas manufacturing. An enormous percentage of drug ingredients and raw materials for drugs (primarily generic and over-the-counter) come from India, China and other countries where quality assurance is not as rigorous as in the US -- and where drug counterfeiting has been a problem.
Trap: Overseas plants are inspected much less frequently than those in the US. Without testing, there's no way to tell whether drugs and drug ingredients derived from these plants have impurities -- or come in "subtherapeutic" doses (for example, a drug labeled as 10 mg may be only 6 mg).
STAYING SAFE
Most of the evidence for problems with generic drugs is based on anecdotal reports. However, research published in Neurology in 2004 reported that people with epilepsy who switched from the brand-name form of the antiseizure drug phenytoin (Dilantin) to the generic form of the drug began to have higher-than-expected rates of seizures. Investigators found that in many patients, blood levels of the active ingredient had dropped by 30%. Even so, patients should not give up on generic drugs. The cost savings can be considerable... and there's no evidence so far that the majority of generic drugs will cause problems for most patients. Patients using generic drugs should simply take extra precautions...
Stick with one manufacturer. This is particularly important if you're taking a drug with a narrow therapeutic index (NTI), such as the anticoagulant warfarin, the antipsychotic lithium or the anticonvulsant carbamazepine. NTI drugs, which typically require periodic blood tests to measure blood levels of the medications, have a very thin margin between an effective dose and a toxic dose. If you're taking a generic form, ask your pharmacist for the name of the manufacturer -- and request that the pharmacy stick with that company, if possible, to avoid variations between products.
Track your numbers. Many conditions, such as hypertension or high cholesterol, don't cause obvious symptoms. The best way to tell whether a drug is working is to monitor your numbers -- by taking daily blood pressure readings, tracking blood-sugar levels and keeping track of cholesterol levels with frequent blood tests at your doctor's office.
Important: Ask your doctor to give you copies of your test results. Check them periodically to make sure that you're maintaining adequate control -- particularly if you've recently switched from a brand name to a generic, or the reverse.
Trust your instincts. Some medications affect the body in subtle ways. A patient taking a thyroid drug, for example, might feel slightly run-down if it isn't working exactly the way it should, even if test results appear to be normal. Pay attention. If you've switched to a generic and notice a difference -- either in effectiveness or side effects -- tell your doctor.
Do a "challenge, rechallenge" test. If you suspect that a generic drug isn't working the way it should, write down changes in how long the drug works and side effects. Then, ask your doctor to switch you to the brand-name equivalent, and see if there's improvement -- in most cases, it will be apparent in about two weeks. Under the close supervision of your doctor, repeat the test, going back and forth until you have a clear idea which drug is more effective for you.
Report problems to the FDA.* The FDA can analyze generic drugs to determine if they contain the stated amount of active ingredient. When reporting a drug to the FDA, ask your pharmacist to provide the name of the manufacturer, the lot number and exactly when the drug was dispensed to you.
If you'd also like to report problems with generic drugs to us, go to The People's Pharmacy Web site, www.peoplespharmacy.org.
Bottom Line/Health interviewed Joe Graedon, a pharmacologist, and Teresa Graedon, PhD, consumer advocates who specialize in health issues related to drugs, herbs and vitamins. Their syndicated newspaper column "The People's Pharmacy" is widely distributed in the US and abroad, and they cohost an award-winning radio talk show. They are coauthors of 12 books, including the recently published Best Choices from The People's Pharmacy (Rodale
You know it as well as I do: the main threat to our health and health freedom is that we are so very productive, financially speaking, when we are sick. Healthy, we work and go to school and pay taxes and get married and so forth. Health is, after all, our natural state of being but it does not generate much income for the illness industry.
Sick, we have the capacity to pour nearly limitless streams of wealth into the coffers of the vast industry that prospers only if we are ill. The huge hospitals, the ubiquitous drug stores, the nurses and doctors, the cancer and cardiovascular centers, the sleek and slick drug companies - where would they be if we were well? Nonexistent-- that's where they would be.
If illness were not so profitable, we would not have to fight so hard for our health. It would not be in anyone's best interests to have us sicker younger, longer. If our illness were not the most financially productive reality on Planet Earth, we would use herbs, nutrients, exercise, sunlight, mind/body techniques and other inexpensive, powerful and non toxic health strategies as a matter of course. There would be no battle for our minds and our bodies to degrade our immune systems and force us into lingering, tragic diseases which are so very profitable for the illness industry - and devastating for us.
I have said it before and I will say it again: the other side has more money than God. They will use it to make you sick and to make you believe that the only way to get well is to put your faith, your money and your health, in the hands of the agencies and industries that profit from your illness, not your wellness. These are the people who, like the FDA, are perfectly happy to jeopardize your health, indeed your very life, to keep their corporate masters happy by approving unsafe food and dangerous drugs while conducting a vigorous war on your well being and your right to use products, services and strategies which do not enhance illness, but support wellness.
The evidence is in - and it is overwhelming. Even at typical low power, cell phones and wireless technology cause severe biological disturbances in human cells. In August 2007, 26 medical and public health experts their Bioinitiative Report - available online - reviewing all the literature on the effects of electromagnetic radiation
Cell phone researchers not in the pay of mobile phone corporations agree on three things:
1. Current guidelines based only on the heating effects of cell phones do not address non-heating damage to DNA, nor the effects of frequency modulation used to broadcast information and are completely inadequate to safeguard public health. Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is should not be used as a basis for a safety standard since it regulates against thermal effects only.
So far cell phone “safety codes” only regulate radiation capable of burning skin. It's like saying cigarettes aren't dangerous unless they burn you.
Cellphone manufactures insist that “many studies” show their miniature microwave ovens are safe. But when pressed by the Washington Post to back up their claim, the cellphone industry could cite no studies showing no adverse impact from cellular telephones on human tissues, nervous systems or organs.
Dr. George Carlo confirms: “The industry had come out and said that there were thousands of studies that proved that wireless phones are safe, and the fact was that there were no studies that were directly relevant.”
There are more than 15,000 scientific studies reporting the cell phone health hazards. At least 66 epidemiological studies show that electromagnetic radiation increases brain tumors in human populations. [“Cell Phone Convenience or 21st Century Plague?" by Dr. Nick Begich and James Roderick earthpulse.com]
A TWO-MINUTE CALL After only two minutes of cellphone exposure, the blood-brain barrier fails, allowing proteins to enter the brain that can cause nerve damage. “Molecules such as proteins and toxins can pass out of the blood, while the phone is switched on, and enter the brain. We need to bear in mind diseases such as MS and Alzheimer's are linked to proteins being found in the brain.” So, adds Leif Salford of Lund University in Sweden, is Parkinson's disease. [Electronics Australia Magazine Feb/00]
STRESS PROTEINS Cell phone and cell phone tower radiation stress our cells, releasing DNA-damaging free radicals and stress proteins that can migrate through the opened blood-brain barrier and cause degenerative damage in the brain. Dr. Theodore Litovitz, a biophysicist and professor emeritus of physics at Catholic University, explains: "Because stress proteins are involved in the progression of a number of diseases, heavy daily cell-phone usage could lead to great incidence of disorders such as Alzheimer's and cancer." [Reuters Apr 23/08; wirelessconsumers.org Dec03/01]
2. Children through teenage years, and pregnant women should be kept away from cell phones and cell phone radiation.
Alarmed British military scientists have discovered that every cell phone transmission disrupts brain functioning responsible for memory and learning. “Overuse” can cause forgetfulness and sudden confusion, as well as loss of the ability to concentrate, calculate and coordinate.
Children and teens who become hooked on cell phones face a lifetime of learning disabilities, hyperactivity, high risk from driving accidents, greatly increased acute and chronic asthma, hearing loss, vision loss, sleep disorders and cancers - as well as loss of social skills, inability to think and reason clearly, loss of contact with their surroundings. [India Tribune Sept 17/04]
More than 2 billion people - including at least 500 million children - are using cell phones.
At least 87% of 11- to 16-year-olds own cell phones. In the USA, one in three teenagers uses a cell phone. RF/MW signals currently under discussion for inflicting on wireless classrooms throughout North America and the overdeveloped world will operate in the 2.4 GHz frequency range - two to three times higher than current cell phones. Plans are already underway to boost classroom radiation levels with “upgraded” technology emitting 5 GHz. [Uncensored (NZ) Nov 9/06; irf.univie.ac.at]
These kids may be difficult to replace, because researchers at University of Szeged in Hungary have discovered that men carrying their cell phones on standby anywhere in their clothing throughout the day produce about a third less sperm than those who do not. Of the remaining sperm, high numbers were found to be swimming erratically - significantly reducing chances of fertilization. [BBC June 27/04]
Put men made infertile by their cell phones together with fashionable beach going women who carry their cellphones in their bikini bottoms and... We could be looking at an inadvertent cell phone cull. Especially if women are culled by bra-makers encouraging them to carry cell phones in their convenient, already cancer-prone cleavage.
The Spanish Neuro Diagnostic Research Institute in Marbella has found that a call lasting just two minutes can alter the natural electrical activity of a child's brain for up to an hour afterwards. Spanish doctors now fear that disturbed brain activity in children will lead to impaired learning ability, as well as psychiatric and behavioural problems.
Brain scans allowed Dr. Michael Klieeisen's team to see what is happening to the brains of cell phone users. “We never expected to see this continuing activity in the brain,” he told the European press in new stories blacked out in the U.S.
Dr. Gerald Hyland finds the results "extremely disturbing.” Parents who believe they are enhancing their children's safety and social standing by sending them back to school with cellphones could be impairing their health and ability to learn, Dr. Hyland warns. “The results show that children's brains are affected for long periods even after very short-term use. Their brain wave patterns are abnormal and stay like that for a long period. This could affect their mood and ability to learn in the classroom if they have been using a phone during break time, for instance.”
These same altered brain waves “could lead to things like a lack of concentration, memory loss, inability to learn and aggressive behaviour. My advice would be to avoid mobiles." [Mirror Dec 26/01]
Led by Sir William Stewart, the famous British biochemist and president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science biomedical specialists, the Stewart Inquiry report on “Mobile Phones and Health” was released in April 2000. Sir William said he would not allow his grandchildren to use mobile phones. [Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine Sept /01]
In Sweden cell phones are being marketed to 5-year-olds. Olle Johansson, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm declares: “Parents should take their children away from that technology." [Dialing Our Cells by William Thomas]
The Australian government's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) described laboratory tests as far back December 1974 showing neurons in the soft skulls of developing fetuses are extremely sensitive to heat during the process of cell division. ”The mother's pelvic structure promotes deep RF radiation penetration within the developing embryo or fetus,” Dr. Barnett warned. The womb's saline fluid is also highly conductive to Radio Frequencies and microwaves - and the EMF-conductive human body is 65% water-by-weight. Brain functioning may be impaired for life. [CSIRO June 1994; irf.univie.ac.at/emf; EMFacts Consultancy Mar 26/03]
The age of cell phone users continues to drop as fast as their IQ and attention span. In 2007, the average age of first-time “users” was 10. By next year, International Data Corp forecasts the 9-and-under market will rack up an additional $1.6 billion in revenue for cell phone companies - and add another nine million child zombies in the United States alone.
According to a Eurobarometer survey of children in 29 countries, most had cellphones after age 9. "We're pretty bullish on increased usage by teenagers,” exudes Adam Guy, a senior analyst at the Strategist Group. “Usage penetration is exploding."
Four in 10 people, particularly young adults, make cell phone calls to kill time as well as themselves. [London Telegraph Oct 9/07]
Professor Mild, of Orbero University, Sweden is a Government adviser who led the research says children should not be allowed to use mobile phones. He and others want a revision of the emission standard for mobiles and other sources of radiation, which they describe as “inappropriate” and “not safe”. [London Telegraph Oct 9/07]
Dr. Salford says brain neurons that would normally not become senile until people reached their 60's, are doing so now when people reach their 30's because of cell phone exposure. [ RFSafe.com Nov26/03]
Cellular One's slogan - "Wherever you go, there we are" - takes on ominous overtones as uninformed people are buying cellphones worldwide at the rate of 25 thousand a day and succumb to PR campaigns like the one that shows a picture of a crib and bears the legend: "No Member of the Family Should Be Without One..." [Independent Mar 30/08]
BEYOND CANCER It's not just cancer that makes cell phones so dangerous. Lloyd's of London refuses to insure phone manufacturers against the risk of subscribers developing cancer - and early onset Alzheimer's. [Observer Mar11/99]
“Cumulative DNA damage in nerve cells of the brain can lead to Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and Parkinson's diseases.” One type of brain cell can become cancerous from these double-strand DNA breaks at lower than the current Specific Absorption Rate exposure-standard (4 watts/kg).
It is not the total energy associated with the EMF that is critical, but rather pulsed oscillations. Many repetitions at the higher frequency close to subtle natural rhythms cause non-thermal threshold to be reached in a shorter time. This makes cellular processes “unusually sensitive to non-thermal ELF frequency fields.”
Dr. Henry Lai, a 20-year EMF researcher, and colleague Dr. N.P. Singh confirmed double-strand DNA breaks in test animals exposed for just two hours to pulsed, cell phone microwaves. When you talk on your mobile phone at 800 MHz and 1,990 MHz, whipping anything back-and-forth 800 or 1,990 million times per second is bound to cause breakage in the double-strand DNA of human cells. [guardian.co.uk]
EM engineer Alasdair Philips of Britain's Powerwatch looked for people under age 40 using cell phones more than four hours a day, and found them already retired as “unfit for future work” due to early onset dementia. [EMFacts Consultancy Mar 26/03]
3. The risk of contracting cancer from cell phones is about 4% of more than 2 billion users - 80 million people and rising at 25,000 new "users" every day. The risk of premature senility and contracting Alzheimer's is extreme. Most kids brought up using cell phones will be functionally senile by the time they are 30.
You only need 2000 hours on a cell - OR A CORDLESS - phone to qualify for a 2 to 4x increased likelihood of a brain (glioma) or ear (acoustic neuroma) tumor.
On a New Zealand news show, Dr. George Carlo called marketing strategies aimed at children, “grotesque” after identifying as many as 50,000 new cases of brain and eye cancer attributable to cell phone use being diagnosed every year. (Mobile users who wear metal-frame glasses intensify the exposure to their eyes and heads). Based on current epidemiological studies, that number will reach half a million cell phone cancer cases annually within the next two years. [IsraCast Technology News July 29/05]
After heading a $28 million cell phone study from 1993 through 2001, Dr. Carlos' finding “that RF causes genetic damage” was not welcomed by his cell phone industry sponsors. Ross Adey worked on similar research funded by Motorola in 1991. After he came to similar conclusions, Motorola was adamant that Adey never mention DNA damage and radiofrequency radiation in the same breath. [WSW July 11/02; wirelessconsumers.org Dec03/01]
DRIVE TIME Stunned by an additional $4 billion a year in claims for drivers using cell phones, North American insurers discovered that juggling phones while driving is not causing a 600% increase in accidents. Cell phones are much worse than merely dangerous driving distractions. Tests conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy found that using a cellphone severely impairs a driver's memory and reaction times by disrupting signals to and within the brain. Hands-free mobile phones cause even more crashes because they typically emit 10-times more brainwave interference than handheld units.
Phoning from inside a car or truck is a bad call for everyone in the vehicle - especially children - because the surrounding steel structure amplifies cellphone emissions “by up to 10-fold,” the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee reports.
University of Toronto investigators report that the heightened probability of cracking up your car persists for up to a half-hour after completing a call.
“That's comparable to the risk of crashing while driving dead drunk,” exclaims Dr. Chris Runball, chairman of the B.C. Medical Association's emergency medical services committee. Motorists talking on cell phones are actually more impaired than drunk drivers with blood-alcohol levels exceeding 0.08. It doesn't matter whether the phone is hand-held or hands free. [Human Factors and Ergonomics Society]
If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, her reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver. But not as wise. [AP Feb 2/05; Human Factors Winter/05]
ELECTRICAL FIELDS AND MAGNETIC FIELDS “The electricity that comes out of every power socket has associated low frequency electromagnetic fields. Various kinds of higher frequency radiowaves are used to transmit information - whether via TV antennas, radio stations or mobile phone base stations.”
“Radio, television, radar and cellular telephone antennas, and microwave ovens are the main sources of RF fields. These fields induce currents within the human body, which if sufficient can produce a range of effects.”
“A magnetic field is only produced once a device is switched on and current flows.”
Magnetic fields penetrate living tissue “easily.”
“Magnetic fields as low as around 2 milligauss or a millionth of a Tesla can produce biological effects. Using a cell phone or a PDA exposes you to magnetic pulses that peak at several tens of microtesla, which is well over the minimum needed to give harmful effects.” [Bioeffects Initiative report]
CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA “Childhood leukemia is the most frequent childhood malignancy that peaks in the age group of 2 to about 5 years… This peak seems to have been newly evolved in the early quarter of the 20th century and may be due to electrification”… acting as synergistic activators of toxic chemical compounds, I add to the Bioeffects Initiative finding.
MELATONIN, ALZHEIMER'S AND BREAST CANCER “Melatonin is found in nearly all organisms… it helps prevent both Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer. Long-term exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF, = 60 Hz) magnetic fields is associated with a decrease in melatonin production.”
“Amyloid beta protein is generally considered the primary neurotoxic agent causally associated with Alzheimer's disease. Melatonin can inhibit the development of Alzheimer's disease and, thus, low melatonin may increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease.
“Low melatonin production is a likely risk factor for breast cancer… 11 of the 13 published epidemiologic residential and occupational studies are considered to provide (positive) evidence that high MF exposure can result in decreased melatonin production. (The two negative studies had important deficiencies that may certainly have biased the results.)”
“Some modulation patterns are more bioactive than others, for example, frequencies are similar to those found in brain wave patterns. Current public safety limits do not take modulation into account and thus are no longer sufficiently protective of public health where chronic exposure to pulsed or pulse-modulated signal is involved, and where sub-populations of more susceptible individuals may be at risk from such exposures.” [Bioeffects Initiative report]
LOW POWER IS VERY DANGEROUS Cell phone researcher Dr. Peter Franch says unequivocally that brain and other “cells are permanently damaged by cellular phone frequencies.” This cellular damage, Franch notes, is maximized at low power. [guardian.co.uk]
Much like taking repeated blows to the head, rapidly pulsing cell phones signal permanent brain damage. And the high frequency range used in today's digital cell phones is also very close to the resonant frequency of human DNA, as well as the resonant frequency of the human skull case.
As the Bioeffects Initiative report points out: “Published laboratory studies have provided evidence for more than 40 years on bioeffects at much lower intensities than cited in the various widely publicized guidelines for limits to prevent harmful effects. Many of these reports show EMF-caused changes in processes associated with cell growth control, differentiation and proliferation which are the molecular and cellular basis of cancer.”
“Windows of intensity align across different carrier frequencies." [Bioeffects Initiative report]
COLTAN A tiny piece of mineral used in your phone called coltan is causing a frenzied rush for its extraction in strip mines across the Congo - exploiting children, razing pristine forests, wiping out up to 90% of all mountain gorillas, and has already led to the rape of more than 250,000 women as old as 75 and girls as young as three.
Since consumers don't have any idea where the coltan in their phones comes from, please stop buying them until guidelines guaranteeing the provenance of cell phone and wireless laptop computers come in.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE BIOEFFECTS INITIATIVE REPORT “The conclusion that, if health effects of commonly encountered RF exposures exist, they must be small, is wrong. The evidence points to a quite substantial hazard. Scientific research has shown that the public is not being protected from potential damage that can be caused by exposure to EMF, both power frequency (ELF) and radio frequency (RF).”
“There is a need for a biological standard to replace the thermal standard and to also protect against cumulative effects across the EM spectrum.”
One main conclusion from the worldwide NATO meetings in 2005: “Worldwide harmonization of standards have to be based on biological responses.”
“DNA damage (strand breaks), a cause of cancer, occurs at levels of ELF and RF that are below the safety limits. Also, there is no protection against cumulative effects stimulated by different parts of the EM spectrum.”
“ELF limits for public exposure should be revised to reflect increased risk of breast cancer at environmental levels possibly as low as 2 milliGauss or 3 mG.”
“There is substantial scientific evidence that some modulated fields (pulsed or repeated signals) are bioactive, which increases the likelihood that they could have health impacts with chronic exposure even at very low exposure levels. Modulation signals may interfere with normal, nonlinear biological processes.”
“Current standards have ignored modulation as a factor in human health impacts, and thus are inadequate in the protection of the public in terms of chronic exposure to some forms of ELFmodulated RF signals… The collective papers on modulation appear to be omitted from consideration.”
IT'S NOT JUST THE CELL PHONES! What about all these cell phone relay towers springing up everywhere? Our bodies - and each one of our trillions of cells - are exquisitely sensitive receiving antennas.
There are currently over 210,000 cell towers, providing 81% wireless penetration in America alone, and one would be hard-pressed to find an inhabitable place on Earth that is not within range of cell frequency transmissions. [CTIA The Wireless Association June/07]
The work of researchers like Dr. Henry Lai, Dr. Ross Adey and Dr. Jerry Phillips show that such effects as DNA strand breaks are produced not only by short-term exposure at high intensity, but also by long-term, chronic exposure to low intensities - like that increasingly experienced by growing numbers of people from cell phone towers and microwave communication facilities. Henry Lai found Radio Frequency Radiation like that from cell phone towers penetrates further into a child's small, growing skull.
As my friend Chris Anderson points out, “This is continuous exposure, and it is not optional.”
Sydney Australia first city to go wireless say a significant jump in allergies and deaths.
By 2005, more than 500 cell tower disputes around the country ended up in court. But federal law prohibits towns from rejecting a transmission tower on the grounds that it poses health concerns. [New York Times May 1/05]
Now, cell phones small enough to fit inside a cigarette case have decreased reception so base stations must boost their microwave transmissions 15% to 20%. [New York Times Mar 10/03]
Findings by the Associated Bioelectromagnetics Technologists show that RF exposure from cell phones and cell phone relay towers “is wholly correlated with the repeatedly documented increased incidence of autism - now reported by at least some researchers as greater than 1 per 100 newborn.”
A COMING CULL? Professor Khurana has placed his considerable reputation behind warning: “Unless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive steps, the incidence of malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to rise globally within a decade from now - by which time it may be much too late to medically intervene.” [Independent Mar 30/08]
“Dr. George Carlo predicts surefire disaster, and the complete destruction of the health care system from electromagnetic radiation alone.” Right now, the Bioeffects Initiative report indicates that as many as one in 10 people suffer debilitating effects from electromagnetic sensitivities. EMR expert Chris Anderson predicts, “In the next 5 to 10 years, fully half the developed world's population could suffer disability from EMR. [Chris Anderson EMR expert - correspondence with the author.)
After carefully reviewing more than 100 clinical studies showing that using “hands free” and regular cell phones for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer, PhD Vini Khurana - who has received 14 awards while publishing more than three dozen scientific papers - predicts that cell phones will kill far more people than either smoking or asbestos. Smoking continues to cull some five million people worldwide every year, while asbestos exposure in England continues to claim as many corpses as road accidents. [Independent Mar 30/08]
In September 2007, the EU's European Environment Agency (EEA) and the country of Germany both issued warnings to their citizens advising them to avoid the use of WiFi and cell phones until further long term studies are conducted, citing fears that the ubiquitous use of wireless technology has the potential to become the next public health disaster on the level of tobacco smoking, asbestos, and lead in automobile gas. [naturalnews.com]
Dr. Vini Khurana urges everyone to stop using cell phones immediately. [Independent Mar 30/08]
GUARANTEED CELL PHONE PROTECTION Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, director general of the World Health Organisation, former Norwegian prime minister and licensed physician emphasized: Making shorter calls does not help, [Microwave News Mar-Apr/02; Dagbladet Norge Mar 9/02]
The only way to ensure complete protection against being turned into a zombie by cell phones is to avoid using them except in emergencies when no other voice communication is available - at the max, experts suggest, one or two minutes per month.
SEVEN THINGS YOU CAN DO 1. Do not use a cell phone for longer than one minute twice a month.
2. Do not live within two miles or five kilometers from a cell phone tower. Get the tower removed. Or move.
3. In your home, unplug all electrical appliances when not in use. (Switching TVs and similar devices “off” does not turn them off. Intersecting electrical fields result.)
4. Avoid using wireless routers and portable phones.
5. Keep your bedroom free of electrical appliances, especially near your head while you sleep. Use a battery-operated alarm clock - never a plug-in clock radio! Unplug lamps when not in use.
6. Replace dimmer switches with regular switches to eliminate high-frequency radiation - the "dirty electricity" hidden in your home's most likely improperly grounded electrical wiring. (Even if done to Code.)
7. Take the best quality daily vitamin and mineral supplements program you can get your hands on. slashphone.com Bush's brain - stream .paranode.com Unlucky cellphone winner - www.mala.ca
Vista: Restore the Hibernate Option - Tech-Recipes.com: "If you have used the Disk Cleanup Utility and utilized it to clear the hibernation file, you may be surprised to find that the Hibernate option is no longer available. You can restore the hibernate option by following these instructions:
1. Click the Start button.
2. Select All Programs.
3. Select Accessories.
4. Right-click on Command Prompt.
5. Select Run as Administrator.
6. When the UAC prompt appears, click Continue.
7. Type powercfg /hibernate on and press Enter on your keyboard.
eneric drugs cost 30% to 80% less than their brand-name counterparts and most people feel safe taking them because the FDA requires that both types of medications provide the same active ingredients and level of effectiveness. 
Periodic checks for impurities. The FDA monitors generic drugs, testing for such things as proper dosing and active ingredients. But the agency only checks about 300 "dosage forms," such as tablets and capsules, among brand-name and generic products a year -- out of a total of more than three billion prescriptions.