Dr. Ann

Scientists Warn of Potential Serious Health Effects of 5G

Scientists Warn of Potential Serious Health Effects of 5G

September 13, 2017

We the undersigned, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.

5G leads to massive increase of mandatory exposure to wireless radiation.

5G technology is effective only over short distance. It is poorly transmitted through solid material. Many new antennas will be required and full-scale implementation will result in antennas every 10 to 12 houses in urban areas, thus massively increasing mandatory exposure.

With ”the ever more extensive use of wireless technologies,” nobody can avoid being exposed. Because on top of the increased number of 5G-transmitters (even within housing, shops and in hospitals) according to estimates, ”10 to 20 billion connections” (to refrigerators, washing machines, surveillance cameras, self-driving cars and buses, etc.) will be parts of the Internet of Things. All these together can cause a substantial increase in the total, long term RF-EMF exposure to all EU citizens.

Harmful effects of RF-EMF exposure are already proven.

More than 230 scientists from 41 countries have expressed their “serious concerns” regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices already before the additional 5G roll-out. They refer to the fact that ”numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines”. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plants and animals.

After the scientists’ appeal was written in 2015, additional research has convincingly confirmed serious health risks from RF-EMF fields from wireless technology. The world’s largest study (25 million US dollar) National Toxicology Program (NTP), shows statistically significant increase in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to EMF below the ICNIRP guidelines followed by most countries. These results support results in human epidemiological studies on RF radiation and brain tumour risk. A large number of peer-reviewed scientific reports demonstrate harm to human health from EMFs.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2011 concluded that EMFs of frequencies 30 KHz – 300 GHz are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). However, new studies like the NTP study mentioned above and several epidemiological investigations including the latest studies on mobile phone use and brain cancer risks confirm that RF-EMF radiation is carcinogenic to humans.

The EUROPA EM-EMF Guideline 2016 states that ”there is strong evidence that long-term exposure to certain EMFs is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer’s disease, and male infertility…Common EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms.

An increasing part of the European population is affected by ill health symptoms that have for many years been linked to exposure to EMF and wireless radiation in the scientific literature. The International Scientific Declaration on EHS & multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), Brussels 2015, declares that: “In view of our present scientific knowledge, we thereby stress all national and international bodies and institutions…to recognize EHS and MCS as true medical conditions which acting as sentinel diseases may create a major public health concern in years to come worldwide i.e. in all the countries implementing unrestricted use of electromagnetic field-based wireless technologies and marketed chemical substances… Inaction is a cost to society and is not an option anymore… we unanimously acknowledge this serious hazard to public health…that major primary prevention measures are adopted and prioritized, to face this worldwide pan-epidemic in perspective.”

The Precautionary Principle (UNESCO) was adopted by EU 2005:  “When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.

Resolution 1815 (Council of Europe, 2011): ”Take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours…Assembly strongly recommends that the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle is applied, covering both the so-called thermal effects and the athermic [non-thermal] or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation” and to ”improve risk-assessment standards and quality”.

The Nuremberg code (1949) applies to all experiments on humans, thus including the roll-out of 5G with new, higher RF-EMF exposure. All such experiments: “should be based on previous knowledge (e.g., an expectation derived from animal experiments) that justifies the experiment.  No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.” (Nuremberg code pts 3-5).  Already published scientific studies show that there is “a priori reason to believe” in real health hazards.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) is warning for ”Radiation risk from everyday devices” in spite of the radiation being below the WHO/ICNIRP standards. EEA also concludes: ”There are many examples of the failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in serious and often irreversible damage to health and environments…harmful exposures can be widespread before there is both ‘convincing’ evidence of harm from long-term exposures, and biological understanding of how that harm is caused.”

https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/scientist-5G-appeal-2017

 

All Hospitals Should Ban Perfumes

All Hospitals Should Ban Perfumes and Other Scented Products, says Canada’s leading medical journal

Evidence suggests as many as half of all asthma cases are mostly aggravated by artificial scents, and not classic allergens such as dust mites and pollens

Sharon Kirkby, October 5, 2015 

Every hospital in Canada should be required to enact “scent-free policies” discouraging staff, visitors and patients from applying artificially fragranced products to their bodies, Canada’s top medical journal says.

While perfumes, scented deodorant, lotions or creams may help people feel more attractive, “they may result in unintended harm to those who are vulnerable,” particularly people with asthma, or other upper airway or skin sensitivities, the Canadian Medical Association Journal says in an editorial published Monday. “There is little justification for continuing to tolerate artificial scents in our hospitals,” the journal says.

While a growing number of workplaces — including some hospitals — discourage people from wearing perfumed products, it is not de rigueur in all Canadian healthcare institutions, the authors say.

“Hospital environments free from artificial scents should become a uniform policy,” argues the CMAJ — the same journal that, four years ago, published a news article stating scent-free policies were “generally unjustified” and based on “fuzzy and inclusive” science.

It is becoming obvious that some people can be made to feel ill, or even seriously harmed. It’s time to call a stop Dr. Ken Flegel, co-author of the new editorial, says more has been learned in the intervening years about fragrance sensitivity to justify taking precautions in hospitals.

Like second-hand cigarette, smoke, perfume and other strong odours can irritate, and trigger inflammation in, the airways of people with asthma.

According to the Canadian Lung Association, 15 to 20 per cent of the population suffers from asthma, bronchitis, emphysema or other breathing problems, and a third of people with asthma say their disease is made worse by exposure to perfumed products. In addition, Statistics Canada states that, in 2104, 2.4 per cent of Canadians 12 and older — 800,562 people — reported having been diagnosed by a health professional with “multiple chemical sensitivities.” Chemicals in perfumes and other fragranced products can cause health problems such as headaches, dizziness, wheezing, nausea, fatigue, confusion and anxiety. Cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy can also become extremely sensitive to certain scents, according to the University Health Network in Toronto, which has a scent-free policy, posted at the entrances to all four of its hospitals.

Flegel says evidence is emerging that as many as half of all asthma cases are mostly aggravated by artificial scents, and not classic allergens such as dust mites, pollens and pet dander.

“Asthma specialists are becoming aware that they don’t understand the underlying cause of at least half of their asthma cases — they don’t appear to be the classic allergic mechanism,” said Flegel, an internal medicine doctor in Montreal and an associate editor at the CMAJ.

Instead, many may be due to so-called irritant, or toxic asthma, he said. Researchers have identified receptors in the airways that appear to react to “noxious stimuli” such as the chemicals in perfumes and colognes.

The end result, Flegel said, is the same: “You get a big inflammation in your lungs, and it can be much more rapid and instant than it is with the allergic kind” of asthma.

“From a hospital or healthcare perspective, there is no benefit to wearing personal scents — they’re to make one person more attractive to other people, and maybe a specific person, who knows,” Flegel said.

But, “It is becoming obvious that some people can be made to feel ill, or even seriously harmed. It’s time to call a stop.”

He said scent-free or scent-reduction policies should become part of the Canadian hospital accreditation standards. “Like many other things in hospitals, like washing your hands, word gets around and the policy gets adopted with a lot of effort,” Flegel said.

Federal and provincial human rights acts require employers to accommodate workers with scent sensitivities, but not patients in hospitals, Flegel said. “If you walk into a hospital and you meet any old doctor who’s got lots of stuff in his spiky hair and it really smells, there’s nothing you can do about that, and you may need that doctor’s help,” Flegel said.

“Nurses and doctors have to get into patient’s intimate space. We’re the first ones who should be setting the example. You shouldn’t expect a patient with scent asthma who is lying in bed to be nursed by someone who radiates perfume as soon as he or she walks into the room.”

In response to a request from the Post, the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association referred to its website, which states that several U.S. medical groups “have all rejected MCS (multiple chemical sensitivity) as a legitimate organic disease.”

“It is important to ask whether the majority of Canadians who enjoy scented products should be required to stop using them without credible, medical evidence demonstrating that they post a significant, physical health hazard,” the association says.

All hospitals should ban perfumes and other scented products, says Canada’s leading medical journal

Jolie Jones – My EMF Story

It’s been another good week for environmental sensitivities in the media.  Jolie Jones, daughter of Quincy Jones, was interviewed by Lloyd Burrell of ElectricSense about her struggle with electromagnetic (EMF) sensitivities.  Kudos to Ms. Jones for speaking out about this often misunderstood condition and for having the courage to share her own story. Celebrity spokespeople are invaluable in helping to bring awareness and credibility to environmental illnesses like chemical and EMF sensitivities. 

Jolie Jones – My EMF Story

Posted by Lloyd Burrell on February 20, 2018 under Podcasts & Teleseminars

ElectricSense, www.electricsense.com/13519/emf-jolie-jones

 “It started kind of out of nowhere”.  Not exactly overnight but over the course of a few weeks or so.

She began to have these sensations behind her head like a vibration going from the bottom of her skull to the top.

Then there were the feelings of cloudiness, fogginess, like a big cloud was coming in the side of her temples pushing down on her brain.

She couldn’t think. She was in a permanent fog. She was also getting a lot of joint pain. There were different reactions to different exposures. Sometimes she would get heart palpitations. Sometimes she would get these pains in her joints and headaches, and a foggy kind of pressure on her brain. “It was like I became this little old lady”.

She admits to being impossible to be around. She didn’t even want to be herself. She’d have moments where she was fine but when she was around other people and someone had a cell phone on she would crumble into the nervous, anxious little old lady. “Where is it coming from? How do I get away from it? Can you turn it off?”

These were the questions she was continually asking herself and asking to other people. It was really debilitating.

For 4 years she couldn’t use a cell phone and she couldn’t be in a car with a cell phone. She had to literally take the battery out – yes, she could even feel it when it was turned off. She could point to someone’s pocket and tell them where the waves were coming from. People would say, “oh no, I turned my phone off.” She would say, “no, it’s still on. I promise you.” She’d point to where it was and they’d look in their pocket and then they’d look at her like she was a witch because the phone would be on.

She’d be driving on the road and all of a sudden she’d feel this vibration on the side of her head. She’d look for where it was coming from and she’d look up and discover that she was driving parallel to a row of power lines or something.…..

Healing was a major struggle, “it was like moving the Titanic” she says. Thankfully she did heal. She has now recovered her health and is able to function normally again.

Calvin Klein’s Runway Highlights Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

A most surprising thing happened at New York Fashion Week show this year. The Calvin Klein designer used MCS protective clothing as one of his inspirations for his collection. Those of us with chemical sensitivities have always known we were ahead of our time in recognizing the chemical soup we increasingly are living in, but I have to admit I didn’t expect we would be recognized as fashion forward as well! And how ironic to have Calvin Klein be inspired by MCS while at the same time selling a lucrative line of perfumes and cologne which are the bane of our existence!

Calvin Klein’s runway highlights Multiple Chemical Sensitivity disorder.. What is it?

Julie Tong Yahoo Lifestyle, February 15, 2018

A controversial disease known as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) has become an unlikely point of inspiration for Raf Simons, the creative mind behind Calvin Klein.

During his Tuesday New York Fashion Week show, Simons referenced the 1995 Todd Haynes film Safe, which stars Julianne Moore as Carol. The main character becomes a victim in her own home and the world around her. She is, in short, allergic to her own life, as she begins to develop mysterious symptoms — mystery bleeding, fatigue, and weight loss — all inexplicable to doctors. As Carol becomes increasingly curious about what is causing her pain, she suspects the environment and starts wearing long sleeves and a balaclava to stay protected.

This week, Simons used Carol’s protective “fashion choice” as one of several inspirations for his runway collection — which similarly includes a series of balaclavas (hand-knit), thick white and metallic gloves, thigh-high boots, and protective clothing similar to a firefighter’s bunker gear. Jackets and coats are made in a bright safety orange, include reflective paneling along the sleeves and trimming.. One look, featuring a white, green, and red striped sweater with blue sleeves, white trousers, and orange balaclava, bears a striking resemblance to the film’s own promotional imagery of Carol in her protective outfit.

According to Vogue U.K., “Raf defined his work as being a mix of ‘safety and protection’ with a lot of cinematic historical references. They included Safe, the Julianne Moore film of 1995 about environmental illness in California and a new age clinic in Mexico…” While Raf’s show notes chose to explain his creative references with a collection of 50 words, they included “safe,” “environment,” “industrial,” and “uniform.”

But what is MCS, anyway? The disease rose to prominence during the 1980s and was used to describe chemically intolerant patients — those who are unusually, severely sensitive to common chemicals, solvents, and pollutants that are typically not considered harmful to the general public. Examples include diesel exhaust, smoke, fragrances, cleaning products, and even new carpets and fresh ink.

It differs from traditional allergies in its “symptoms and mechanisms,” according to Ann McCampbell, MD, who suffers from the illness and describes it on the website of the nonprofit Chemical Sensitivity Foundation. She explains how the reactions can be as severe as creating an “imbalance in a person’s nervous, immune, and endocrine (hormonal) systems” and forcing sufferers to pare down their diets to just a few select foods. It is also possible to develop difficulty in speech or cognitive ability. Exposure from cell phones, computers, fluorescent lights, and other wireless devices are believed to affect those with MCS, with the triggers and its reactions varying widely.

To see the full article and view the runway photos, go to:

https://finance.yahoo.com/photos/calvin-kleins-runway-highlights-multiple-slideshow-wp-185836466/

Pyrethroids & Deltamethrin Not Safe

Yesterday, I submitted comments to EPA on its Cumulative Risk Assessment of Pyrethrins/Pyrethroids which they claim confirms the safety of their present uses and supports consideration of new uses.  Comments can be submitted until Feb 3, 2012.  See http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2011/pyrethrins.html

COMMENT:

Expanding the uses of pyrethroid pesticides is a terrible idea.  They are already used almost everywhere and are NOT the “kinder gentler” alternative to organophosphate pesticides that some claim.  Deltamethrin, in particular, is extremely toxic, especially to those who become sensitized to it, and it lasts almost forever.  I lost my house and most of my belongings after a housemate tracked in some deltamethrin.  

Restaurants, stores, hotels, movie theaters and other public places are increasingly sprayed with deltamethrin, effectively rendering them permanent toxic waste dumps.  Yes, pyrethroids have the same toxic mechanism of action and yes, they are toxic, and yes, exposures to them add up.  

At a time when we should be aggressively eliminating pesticide use and promoting integrated pest management (IPM) – with a focus on prevention and less-toxic pest control methods – this report is a huge step in the wrong direction.  If the driving force behind this terrible plan is to allow more use of pesticides in hotels/motels to control bed bugs, then the EPA must have missed the part about how pesticides are not very effective against bed bugs, while pesticides can harm people.

Once again, aggressive promotion of less-toxic control methods is in order, not slathering the world with more pesticides.  I am disappointed the EPA would even consider such a futile, harmful, and ridiculous plan.  Approved uses of pyrethroid pesticides should be reduced, not increased, and deltamethrin should be banned.

Ann McCampbell, MD

 

Help When You Need It From Someone Who Understands

Welcome to my new website letting you know I do phone consultations, medical legal work, and sell a Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) booklet.  For the first time, I have also collected and posted my most significant articles, writings, and publications, including “MCS Under Siege” and the NM MCS brochure.  On this blog, I plan to post tips, thoughts, and news updates of interest to people with chemical sensitivity, electromagnetic sensitivity, and other environmental illnesses.

Dr. Ann

Archives

Categories

Receive blog post updates


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner