Citizens For Health on June 30th, 2010

By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 29, 2010; A01

original link: www.washingtonpost.com

San Francisco, a city that banned the plastic bag, now has waded into the muddy territory of cellphone radiation, setting off a call to arms in the $153 billion wireless industry.

Last week, the Board of Supervisors passed a law — the first in the nation — requiring retailers to inform their customers how much radiation the cellphones on their shelves emit, so shoppers can figure out how close the devices come to the upper limits on radiation set by the Federal Communications Commission.

The law, which goes into effect early next year, didn’t mention the word, but it was all about one thing: cancer, and whether cellphones cause it.

cellphone industry answered with its own C-word — cancel. After the vote, the CTIA wireless trade group called off its fall show, scheduled for San Francisco. Elsewhere in the country, the industry has been more successful. Earlier this year, similar laws in Maine and California were beaten back by the makers of the iPhone and Droid and the telecom giants that carry those phones on their networks.

“San Francisco has gotten out front on a number of issues historically,” said John Walls, a CTIA spokesman, “but in this case, we are concerned they are leading the pack down a wrong and misleading road.”

Lacking conclusive evidence one way or the other, studies relating to cellphone safety are being hurled about frenetically as cellphones grow ever more powerful and pervasive: Americans have more than 285 million mobile phones at their ears, and the number in use globally reaches 4.5 billion.

In 2006, Lennart Hardell, a professor of oncology and cancer epidemiology at the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden, reported that adults he followed who had used cellphones for more than 10 years “give a consistent pattern of increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma,” forms of brain tumors. That study has been used as the basis for public health alerts by way of commercials, billboards and warning labels in nations including Britain, Israel, Finland and France, but it has had little resonance in the United States.

Read the rest of this entry »

  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon

Tags:

By Camilla Rees, www.electromagnetichealth.org

Today was a very important day in San Francisco!

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed Mayor Gavin Newsom’s cell phone ‘right to know’ ordinance that will require retailers to post warnings of cell phone radiation risk at the point-of-sale.

The ordinance, postponed last week to today to address legal liability concerns of the City of San Francisco and small business owners, passed with flying colors. In fact, it passed despite heavy lobbying by the telecommunications industry. To be enacted into law, there is first a 10 day comment period before the Mayor signs it into law.

This is a watershed moment for health advocates in the U.S. and families who have or have had members with brain tumors.

San Francisco is the first city in the country to require radiation disclosure data at the point of sale. Warnings were proposed in Maine in March, by Rep. Andrea Boland, and in the State of California in recent weeks by Sen. Mark Leno, but both bills did not pass.

The SAR value to be required at the point-of-sale in San Francisco is a measure of the power of the phone. The exposure limit in the U.S. is 1.6 W/Kg, for this type of radiation, and the guideline was based on an assumed 6 minutes of cell phone radiation exposure.

Please note, however, the SAR is not a complete gauge of cell phone safety. See my article on this at Mercola.com (http://sn.im/xgd6d). The cell phone SAR value does not accurately reflect the potential for biological harm from the frequencies of the communication, and, very importantly, there are also some biological effects that have been shown to be worse at lower SAR values compared to higher SAR values, such as blood brain barrier permeability. In no way should consumers be relying on the SAR value alone as a measure of safety, but instead realize it is how one uses a cell phone (speaker phone or headset vs. against one’s head) and for how long that matters most.

“This bill is a first step”, says Dr. Devra Davis of the Environmental Health Trust. “It would be dangerous for people to assume that they can hold a lower SAR phone close to the head for hours a day. How and where phones are used determines the overall exposures to radiofrequency radiation.”

According to Doug Loranger of SNAFU, the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna Free Union, “The new law will be phased in over the next 2 years, with large formula retailers to be the first to comply, followed by small independent businesses that sell mobile phones”.

Scientists have known for some time that radiation emitted by cell phones posed serious risk. Olle Johannson, PhD of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden has said:

“At the Karolinska Institute, we have for many years observed very serious biological changes from exposure to microwave radiation and extremely low-frequency magnetic fields of the kind emitted by cell phones. The type of radiation emitted by cell phones has been linked to cancer, neurological diseases, impairments to immune function, and neurological function (cognition, behaviour, performance, mood status, disruption of sleep, increased risk for auto collisions, etc.). We also know that this kind of radiation impacts DNA, leading to possible mutations and cancer development, as well as affecting fertility and reproduction, causing a dramatic decline in sperm count.”

Just today, in Seoul, Korea, a presentation at the Bioelectromagnetics Society annual meeting (http://www.bioelectromagnetics.org/bems2010/) by Lloyd Morgan, B.Sc. showed that the risk of brain tumors from cell phone use is in fact much higher that the recently published Interphone study acknowledged. Entitled “Re-evaluation of the Interphone Study: Application of a Correction Factor” (http://sn.im/xd8ex), the report, co-authored with Professor Michael Kundi of the Medical University of Vienna and Michael Carlberg, M.Sc. of the Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden, quantifies the extent of the underestimation of risk of brain tumors from cell phone use on account of the 12 design flaws, now widely reported on.

Morgan says, “What we have discovered indicates there is going to be one hell of a brain tumor pandemic unless people are warned and encouraged to change current cell phone use behaviors. Governments should not soft-peddle this critical public health issue but instead rapidly educate citizens on the risks. People should hear the message clearly that cell phones should be kept away from one’s head and body at all times.”

Please read the full Press Release and audio news releases on this important new scientific report at http://sn.im/xd8ex.

San Francisco Legislation –Draft (stay tuned for final)
http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/bosagendas/materials/bag061510_100104.pdf

Download the Warning Poster Draft from the Mayor of San Francisco here:
http://snurl.com/wqpoi


- by Camilla Rees
ElectromagneticHealth.org

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • email
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon

Tags:

Citizens For Health on June 7th, 2010

By Ann-Marie Luciano

breastfeeding

On Monday, May 24th, at approximately 10:30am, I was nursing my 3 month old son on a bench in the Francis Scott Key mall near the children’s play area (near Value City and DSW). I had my shirt on and lifted up one side to nurse him. Just the top part of my breast was exposed as I nursed, as my son covered up my stomach and nipple (not that it would matter anyway if I was more exposed). While I was nursing a woman who worked at the mall customer service desk that was nearby came up to me and asked me if I knew that there was a nursing room in the mall. I told her that I was not aware of the nursing room and I continued to nurse. She then asked me if I’d go to the nursing room to nurse. I told her I would not, that I was okay nursing on the bench. She then asked me again to either go to the nursing room or to cover up with a blanket because she was uncomfortable “and there are kids around.” I told her that under MD law I had a right to nurse in any public or private place and that I was not going to either leave to go to the nursing room or put a blanket over my son’s head. I added that if she was uncomfortable, she could cover her head. A mom who was in the play area with her kids then came over and said, “I agree with her – can you please go somewhere else or cover up? My KIDS are here.” I told the mother that I was fully within my rights to remain on the bench and nurse my son. She then replied: “But my son asked me, “Mommy, why is that lady putting her boob in that baby’s mouth?” and I don’t know what to tell him. I told her: “Tell your son that that mom is feeding her baby the way moms have fed their babies for millions of years.” A female security guard came over to me and asked that I either go to the nursing room or cover up with a blanket. I told her that under MD law I had a right to breastfeed in any public or private place. The security guard continued to state, “but this is private property” and I continued to remind her that MD law entitled me to nurse on private property as well. All women eventually left to go complain to the head mall office. I finished nursing about 5 minutes later and then left the mall.

I returned to the mall on Tuesday, May 25th, and dropped off a copy of the MD breastfeeding law (which is linked here) to the head office. The gentleman in the office told me that a few people complained about me breastfeeding. He said, “I know your rights” but I asked him to advise his employees of the law anyway since obviously they weren’t aware of MD breastfeeding law.

As a result of this experience I am filing a complaint with the MD Attorney General office. What bothered me so much about this experience is that I couldn’t just feed my baby in peace – I had three different women come up to me and ask me to move or cover up. I stood my ground because I know my rights and because it is important to me that I feed my baby in the way that is best for me. Nursing mothers are not lepers and do not need to hide in nursing rooms in the back corner of the mall (nor do they need to run around with a crying child trying to find a nursing room). Nursing mothers also do not need to cover up in any particular way. I have a lot of latching issues with my son so I need to constantly be able to see what I’m doing so putting a blanket over his head doesn’t work for me. I’m not going to change the way I feed my son to please other people. The MD breastfeeding law clearly states that “[a] person may not restrict or limit the right of a mother to breastfeed her child.” By telling me where (the nursing room) or how (with a blanket) to nurse my son, the employees of the Francis Scott Key Mall were restricting and limiting my right to breastfeed.

I have three goals: (1) to send a message to Francis Scott Key Mall that they must abide by the law and not restrict or limit a mother’s right to nurse her child; (2) to increase awareness of a nursing mother’s right to nurse her child in any public or private place without restriction or limitation; and (3) to increase awareness of breastfeeding in the public at large, with the hope that breastfeeding will become so commonplace that more and more women will feel comfortable nursing their children wherever they may be hungry. It is incidents like this that discourage women from breastfeeding, which countless studies show is most beneficial for the child. I strongly believe that the more women who breastfeed in public the more culturally accepted this natural form of feeding will become.

  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
Citizens For Health on June 4th, 2010

By Melanie Warner via www.industry.bnet.com

Frito-Lay has decided to reformulate its snacks so that by mid-2011 more than half of the company’s sales will come from products without things like MSG and artificial colorings and flavorings. The move illustrates why PepsiCo (PEP), Frito’s corporate parent, is the most savvy and proactive of the major food companies when it comes to health and nutrition.

Recent ill-conceived remarks about obesity aside, PepsiCo executives are taking the lead in responding to Americans’ increasingly sophisticated concerns about the healthfulness of food. A Deloitte survey done in March found that 31% of respondents said “over-processed food” was among their top concerns. And 29% said they were highly concerned about the “possible use of chemical ingredients that are detrimental to long-term health.”

It’s this kind of consumer sentiment that’s inspiring major manufacturers, Pepsi among them, to ditch high fructose corn syrup and replace it with sugar, which is thought to be more natural.

Clearly, Pepsi can’t stop making processed food any time soon, but it can make its products a bit healthier and more closely resembling actual food. In the age of Michelle Obama, that’s what every major packaged food company (restaurants are a different story) wants to do, and virtually all them have pledged to cut back on some combination of sodium, calories and/or saturated fat.

But Frito-Lay’s full-fledged embrace of what the industry likes to calls “clean labels,” which was announced at the company’s annual meeting last week, takes the endeavor to a whole new level. It’s a rare acknowledgment that the healthfulness of a product depends not just on easily manipulated things like calories and fat, but on the quality of the ingredients that go into the product. Artificial food colorings, which can cause hyperactivity in children and are linked to cancer in lab rats, and MSG, which causes some people to have allergic reactions, are the kind of things that make food products sound more like a chemistry experiment than something made from things that once grew in soil or from a tree. According to that Deliotte survey, a majority of consumers — 55% — say they understand half or less of the ingredients in food these days.

The fact that Frito-Lay is already making products without chemical additives in its line of so-called natural snacks will no doubt help make the transition easier. The company has already figured out how to make Cheetos, for instance, without yellow 6, MSG and partially hydrogenated soybean oil that was extracted using hexane, a neurotoxic and highly flammable chemical.

The big challenge will be taking out all this “dirty” stuff without raising prices significantly, since Frito Lay’s core customers are accustomed to getting their snacks for cheap.

Image by Flckr user Merry~Blues

  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
Citizens For Health on June 3rd, 2010

excerpted from www.latimes.com

By Patrick McGreevy and Jack Dolan

bags

Californians would no longer get plastic bags at supermarket check-out stands, and many children would have to wait longer to enter kindergarten under proposals advanced Wednesday by state lawmakers.

The hottest debate Wednesday was in the state Assembly, which voted 41 to 27 to pass a bill that would ban single-use plastic grocery bags — the first of its kind in the nation, according to lawmakers and environmentalists. Shoppers would have to bring reusable bags to the store or pay at least 5 cents each for recycled paper bags at the checkout counter.

Schwarzenegger has indicated that he would sign the bill, AB 1998 by Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica), if it passes the Senate as expected.

Environmentalists say the single-use bags endanger marine life and are more likely to foul beaches than any other form of pollution. Californians use 19 billion such bags a year, or 552 per person, according to an Assembly analysis. The measure was sponsored by Santa Monica group Heal the Bay. Opposition comes largely from the plastics industry.

Cities including San Francisco, Palo Alto, Malibu and others across the country have already instituted such bans. “It’s easier to have a statewide ban than it is to have to figure out how to operate city to city,” said Assembly Speaker John Pérez (D- Los Angeles).

The California Grocers Assn. has endorsed the ban.

“It doesn’t surprise me that certain elements of big business have removed their opposition,” said Assemblyman and U.S. Senate candidate Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine), an opponent of the bill, alluding to the fee shoppers would have to pay for recycled bags. “As long as they don’t get gouged, they’re more than happy to dump the consumer under the bus.”

  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon