Drunk Doctors? Why Wireless Headsets May be a Bad Idea for Patient Care and Doctors’ Health

Commentary by Cindy Sage:  Not long ago, a Physician Assistant in a hospital emergency room told us she was asked to wear a wireless headset (that connects wirelessly to the internet) while seeing her patients. She declined.

In that same week, a young mother went to a new internist in the bay area. The nurse asked if she would give consent for the doctor to wear a wireless headset while examining her child. She also declined.

What is it that these two young women know? Is it something you should be aware of? Here are some important things people should know about the problems posed by wearable wireless computers in the doctor’s office.

Driving drunk, and talking or texting on a cell phone may have in more in common than you think with extended use of a wireless headset. The exposure levels from a wireless headset are about equivalent to (or in some cases higher) than holding a smart phone to the head. Use of a cell phone while driving disrupts cognition and increases the risk of vehicular collision by 4-fold. Now imagine your doctor under the influence of constant workplace RF exposure while they treat patients, prescribe treatments, write prescriptions and juggle intense workday tasks.

Effects on brain function seem to depend in some cases on the mental load of the subject during exposure (the brain is less able to do two jobs well simultaneously when the same part of the brain is involved in both tasks). Some studies show that cell phone exposure speeds up the brain’s activity level; but also that the efficiency and judgment of the brain are diminished at the same time. Faster work but worse mental capacity is not a good thing for a practicing medical doctor.

Multitasking, memory, learning, attention, and concentration are all impaired by the use of wireless devices. Why would anyone want a distracted doctor with impaired thinking skills treating them? Or any healthcare person for that matter? And, doctors should know that wearing the equivalent of a smart phone mounted against their head is a potential risk for brain cancer (glioma and acoustic neuroma).

Next time you need to see your doctor, you may be asked if you object to them wearing wireless headsets. This could easily happen to you. Be prepared with some information.

Is your doctor using wireless medical glasses? A new paper by Cindy Sage and Lennart Hardell warns about the risks to doctors and their patients.

ABSTRACT
Wireless-enabled headsets that connect to the internet can provide remote transcribing of patient examination notes. Audio and video can be captured and transmitted by wireless signals sent from the computer screen in the frame of the glasses. But using wireless glass-type devices can expose the user to a specific absorption rates (SAR) of 1.11–1.46 W/kg of radiofrequency radiation. That RF intensity is as high as or higher than RF emissions of some cell phones. Prolonged use of cell phones used ipsilaterally at the head has been associated with statistically significant increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma. Using wireless glasses for extended periods to teach, to perform surgery, or conduct patient exams will expose the medical professional to similar RF exposures which may impair brain performance, cognition and judgment, concentration and attention and increase the risk for brain tumors. The quality of medical care may be compromised by extended use of wireless-embedded devices in health care settings. Both medical professionals and their patients should know the risks of such devices and have a choice about allowing their use during patient exams. Transmission of sensitive patient data over wireless networks may increase the risk of hacking and security breaches leading to losses of private patient medical and financial data that are strictly protected under HIPPA health information privacy laws. Link to this article:  https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2017.1422261

What Do GMOs and Wi-Fi Have in Common?

By Diane Testa, PhD:  Apple season here in New England yielded an abundant harvest this year. But this year, consumers have a new apple option in supermarket bins: GMO apples. Genetically-modified organisms, or GMOs for short, look the same, taste the same, and smell the same as conventionally grown produce. A GMO apple’s main difference is that the cells of the apple have been altered in a laboratory whereby in most cases it contains genetic information from another organism. The developers of this technology claim these alterations lead to better crop yields or larger produce by killing off pests and weeds. However, in order for these effects to take place, large amounts of pesticides and herbicides must be sprayed on the plants and trees for the GMO technology to have its full effect.
One popular GMO herbicide is Roundup, but despite its popularity, many researchers have serious concerns with its potency as a chemical trigger for disease. When someone eats a GMO food, researchers have found that the main chemical in Roundup, called glyphosate, triggers the body to make a dangerous compound named peroxynitrite. At the same time, glyphosate causes the destruction of some essential amino acids, which are the building blocks for many critical life processes. In a landmark study performed by Dr. Pal Patcher and colleagues at the National Institutes of Health, peroxynitrite generation was implicated as a crucial mechanism underlying more than 40 chronic diseases, such as stroke, heart attack, diabetes, cancer, asthma, arthritis, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. Doctors don’t often consider one unifying factor as causing such diverse disease states as allergies and hypertension, but Dr. Patcher considers peroxynitrite as the “smoking gun” in chronic disease.
With the prevalence of so many chronic diseases on the rise, is there another external factor besides glyphosate in GMO foods that triggers the production of peroxynitrite?

Continue reading What Do GMOs and Wi-Fi Have in Common?

Save copper telephone lines!

EMF Safety Network and Ecological Options Network filed these comments to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in WT Docket 17-84 on why copper lines must be retained and maintained. The FCC is discussing “retirement” of the copper line telephone system.

1. Copper landline phones save lives.
Copper landlines work when the power is out, fiber optics don’t. In an emergency, with no power, no phone, and no 911 services, people will be at risk for life threatening situations. Who will pay the price for this aggressive push to end copper landline service?
Seniors
Businesses
People with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)
Low income people
Residents of rural areas
Hearing impaired
People who want a choice

2. Copper landline phone systems cost less. 
A fiber optic VOIP system requires internet service, computer, router, VOIP device, plus a phone. A VOIP system costs more to purchase, maintain, and replace worn out devices. A VOIP uses more electricity. A copper landline phone is simpler and more cost effective because it only requires a phone.

3. Cell phones are not safe substitutes for corded copper landline phones.
Independent peer-reviewed published science links cell phone radiation to the risk of adverse health impacts, including cancer.
The National Toxicology Program found an increase in brain tumors from exposure to cell phone radiation. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html
The BioInitiative Report reviewed 2000 peer reviewed published studies and found an increased risk of brain cancer from cell and cordless phone radiation. www.bioinitiative.org
Independent scientists who have published peer-reviewed studies warn about the safety risks of cell phones, cell towers and other devices that emit radiation. www.emfscientist.org
IARC, an arm of the World Health Organization classifies cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf
Brain tumors are the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in children age 0-14 http://www.abta.org/about-us/news/brain-tumor-statistics/

Smart Meters Affect the Human Heart

by Warren Woodward, Sedona, Arizona ~ May 31, 2017

Some people weren’t satisfied that my last video was proof enough that “smart” meters affect the human heart. They want to see me get tortured repeatedly, and they want to see others get tortured.

According to one skeptic, I may have had a condition that just happened to coincide with the “smart” meter transmission. How did he know my secret? I must confess I do have a condition. It’s called being healthy, and what the video showed is what happens when a healthy heart gets zapped by a “smart” meter.

Part II of EKG Proof That “Smart” Meters Affect the Human Heart shows that the results of the first video are repeatable. There’s another victim in the video too, so it should be obvious to all that “smart” meters affect everyone. If it’s not obvious to you then hook yourself up to an EKG and hang out near a “smart” meter; I’ve done it enough.

Some people were also concerned that the “smart” meter may have interfered with the EKG device itself and not the human heart. So we have a segment showing what happens when the “smart” meter transmits with the EKG running but with no human hooked up to it. Spoiler alert: nothing happens!

Can we get “smart” meters removed now, or do I have to show someone getting a heart attack?

“I’m shouting, but no-one is listening!” How to talk to people about wireless radiation.

Rachel Gaunt has an extensive 20 year background in advertising, marketing and social activism. Rachel has written this article, “I’m shouting, but no-one is listening! How to talk to people about wireless radiation so they can hear…and care” to help EMF activists.

She writes, “Why is it that our earnest explanations about the dangers of wireless radiation so often fall on deaf ears? Why in the face of so much science are people not rushing to protect themselves?

I have long been an observer of humans and how they behave, and have spent a long time puzzling the resistance and denial that conversations about wireless radiation can generate.  Recently, a meeting with behavior expert, Matthew Wilcox, author of The Business of Choice, helped to provide the final pieces of the puzzle.

When you look at the way humans make decisions, it turns out that there are three major factors working against us when it comes to shifting beliefs about wireless radiation.

Three factors working against us

First and foremost there is the “It will never happen to me,” response to anything bad that may happen to us in the future. This is especially true among young people.

“It will never happen to me. I am never going to die. It might happen to someone else but not to me.”…

Read Rachel Gaunt’s full article here: I’m shouting but no-one is listening!”

Sebastopol- Enforce the smart meter ban!

SMART meter health effectsDecember 1, 2016

An open letter to the City of Sebastopol, City Manager, Council and Staff,

Enforce the smart meter ban in Sebastopol!

In 2013 Sebastopol passed an urgency ordinance banning smart meter installation because they are a threat to health, safety and community welfare. PG&E threatened to sue, so the city did not enforce the ban. PG&E backed off installations, until recently when PG&E met with the city manager to discuss plans to deploy smart meters in Sebastopol.

We are asking the city to enforce the ban because the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has failed to adequately regulate the safety of smart meters.
• The President of the CPUC, Michael Peevey, knew smart meters were causing people pain, and he abetted PG&E’s pay to opt-out scheme, and delayed CPUC regulation.
• A pay to opt-out program is an unlawful response to smart meter problems, including privacy and property rights, radiation health risks, fire hazards, and co-located meters.
• Mayor Michael Kyes and Sarah Gurney spoke to the CPUC judge asking for community opt-out. The CPUC dismissed community opt-out without taking testimony or holding hearings.
• EMF Safety Network, and three other groups have appeals citing violations of law pending. A CPUC attorney stated the CPUC will rule on those appeals in December 2016.

We ask you to stand up to PG&E and enforce the ban until the CPUC adequately regulates smart meters, including the right of cities to avoid them.

Please agendize this issue for Dec.19th.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sandi Maurer,
Director EMF Safety Network

Chapter 8.58 SMART METERS (TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE INSTALLATION OF SMART METERS) https://goo.gl/49n4Yf
Overview of PG&E/CPUC emails on smart meters  https://goo.gl/AzfMQU
Summary of Evidence on Smart Meter Fires: https://goo.gl/ZQQH64
EMF Safety Network CPUC Appeal (Rehearing Request) https://goo.gl/updB6M

Dangers of EMF radiation


Psychic and author Joseph Martin interviews Building Biologist and EMF specialist Eric Windheim on electromagnetic fields and radiation (EMF) hazards. Joseph and Eric bring a candid and humorous approach to the discussion of the science and risk of harm from everyday EMF exposure in the modern world.

Scientists Challenge SCENIHR

Cindy SageWe are in an era of unprecedented psychological manipulation of the science on potential health effects of EMF and RFR.

Over the last few years, the BioInitiative Working Group has worked many hours on the European Commission’s science reviews of EMF and RFR.  What they say matters.  It’s the expert committee for the European Union (EU) recommending whether EMF and RFR public safety limits are okay, or need substantial revision.  You know where we stand on this.  The limits are grossly inadequate in Europe and the US.

The European Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) did a bad job of it in 2009, and has unsurprisingly disappointed us again in 2015.  Through deceptive language tactics, the Committee has deliberately put out misinformation to erase what should have been clear findings of potential health effects of electromagnetic fields.  Health effects that matter greatly to millions of regular people who want to know about EMF.

What’s their NAME?

The Scientific Committee for Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, right?  Emerging (not proven).  Newly identified (not conclusively demonstrated).

What is the NAME OF THEIR REPORT?  

“Final opinion on Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF)”  Not conclusively proven health effects.

What did they conclude?

That there are no conclusively proven biological effects.

How Could That Happen?

” While the scope of the Opinion [SCENIHR, 2015a] did include potential health effects, it was not SCENIHR’s objective to decide whether the possibility of an effect exists, as erroneously suggested by Sage et al. It should be noted that the term “risk” already accounts for probability of a harmful effect and that various levels”. (SCENIHR Leitgeb, 2015)

WHAT?

It would be just an academic farce if our lives didn’t depend on the outcome.  But, we do.  All around the planet, we depend on good advice from educated experts that are supposed to be independent thinkers and good analysts of what is a ‘potential health effect’. No amount of dust-kicking can obscure the basic fact that the SCENIHR failed to do what it was directed to do.

Read for yourselves. This is double-speak.  The SCENIHR’S science review that has failed to carry out the central question asked of this Committee. This is an assessment on which the fate of billions of human beings depends, and upon which global health rests.

For SCENIHR to issue an unwarranted finding of  ‘all clear’ by redefining the reporting terms and misreporting the evidence is bad for science, bad for the public and intensely bad for school children who are sitting in classrooms with WiFi all day, required to use wireless tablets for schoolwork. Read more: http://www.bioinitiative.org/rebuttal-emf-effects/

Cindy Sage