Freitag, 20. Oktober 2006

Computer factory staff are ‘at greater risk of cancer’

The danger of working in the semi-conductor industry was pointed also in Gunni Nordstrom's book "the invisible disease" which is very recommended.

Iris Atzmon.


Computer factory staff are ‘at greater risk of cancer’

MARTYN McLAUGHLIN
October 19 2006

Staff at computer factories could be at increased risk of contracting cancer because of working environments containing high levels of chemicals, metals and electromagnetic fields, according to a new study. In what is the largest study of its kind, the findings focus on upwards of 30,000 deaths of members of staff at factories in the US since 1969. It comes as government health inspectors have begun conducting a long-delayed follow-up inquiry into an Inverclyde factory at the centre of numerous cancer scares. Scots scientists have criticised the "limited" second investigation into the National Semiconductor plant in Greenock, and say the new study helps "firm-up the picture" surrounding health risks. The study by the Boston University School of Public Health in the US, published in the science journal Environmental Health, analysed the causes of death for 31,941 IBM workers and compared them with causes of death among the American population during this period. The information was obtained from IBM as part of a California lawsuit against the firm. The results of the study indicate there was increased mortality due to several types of cancer, especially in manufacturing workers and workers at particular plants in California, Minnesota, New York, and Vermont. Most notably, there was an excess of deaths due to cancer of the brain and central nervous system. Richard Clapp, from Boston University School of Public Health, said: "It was not possible to link these deaths to specific chemicals or other exposures in the workplace because the information necessary to do this was not available." The research appears to back up previous, smaller studies and highlights clear health risks for workers in computer factories. Among these was the Health and Safety Executive's initial 2001 study of 4000 people at National Semiconductor, which showed statistically significant excesses of lung, stomach, and breast cancers among women and an excess of brain cancer among men, with some rates four or five times higher than average. The HSE said it had received "ethical approval" to begin a new study at Greenock. Announced last June, and planning to look at various cases of cancer in more detail, it has been subject to significant delays. Professor Andrew Watterson, of Stirling University's occupational, environmental and public health group, said: "The US study confirms some of the evidence we have seen at Nat Semi. The families of former Nat Semi workers have been calling for years for a Europe-wide or international study into the industry, and this is the next best thing." Jim McCourt, of Phase Two, a support group for Nat Semi workers, said: "We've no doubt working in Nat Semi is dangerous. The scale of this study shows the industry has a real problem, and we would call on the HSE to initiate a UK-wide study."

"The results of the study indicate there was increased mortality due to several types of cancer, especially in manufacturing workers and workers at particular plants in California, Minnesota, New York, and Vermont. Most notably, there was an excess of deaths due to cancer of the brain and central nervous system."

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/72495.shtml
-----

Health risks of Wi-Fi and WLAN on our health

http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1122031/
-----

Donnerstag, 19. Oktober 2006

Bio-Systems as Super-Conductors

Part I: http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/superc1.pdf
Part II: http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/superc2.pdf
Part III: http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/superc3.pdf


Informant: A. Brüggemann
-----

Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2006

Base-station emissions and health concerns

The EMF Discussion Group meeting went well; Sir William Stewart invited us to be open and honest with our opinions, leading to a healthy debate. Details will follow when the group have had time to review the minutes of the meeting.

Please find a copy of my presentation and feel free to distribute to everyone and anyone.

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/hpa_eileen_o_connor_v12b.pdf

I also provided the EMF DG members with copies of an excellent detailed report prepared by Dr George Carlo; he has agreed to allow the report to be sent worldwide.

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/carlo_eileenoconnor_response.pdf

Thank you to everyone for your prayers and support, which helped tremendously.


Best wishes

Eileen O’Connor
-----

ALS an epidemic?

http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2822717/

Young people and the mobile: Alzheimer at 35 years?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2814469/
-----

Dienstag, 17. Oktober 2006

On the Precautionary Approach and the Stewart & NRPB Reports

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/stewart_and_innirp.doc

As we all know, the Stewart Report, April 2000, advocated ‘a precautionary approach’. Since then both the Government and the industry, with the wholehearted backing of the NRPB, have claimed that this need for a ‘precautionary approach’ is fully satisfied by adopting the ICNIRP guidelines. That is the basis of Government policy on masts, enshrined in the assertion in PPG8 that “if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary … to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.” This passage in PPG8 has led to numerous court rulings against individuals, local groups and local authorities claiming that ICNIRP guidelines don’t offer sufficient protection, and in many cases to massive costs awards against those making such claims (implying that those claims are unreasonable).

Ok, so let’s look at what the Stewart Report actually had to say about the ‘Precautionary Principle’ – this text is reiterated in the NRPB Report, 2004 (published January 2005):

“The balance of evidence suggests that exposures to radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population.

“There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines.

"We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.

"We recommend that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available."

Note that the specific reason for advocating a precautionary approach is scientific evidence that exposure at levels “below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines” may have adverse health effects. How, in the name of all that’s rational, can the ICNIRP guidelines be reckoned to satisfy the need for a ‘precautionary approach’ that is specifically advocated PRECISELY BECAUSE scientific evidence indicates that there may be effects that those guidelines don’t cover???

Consider the following hypothetical situation – you may spot similarities:

School governors’ meeting

“Folks, we have a problem. I’ve been told that old Jake, the school caretaker, may be a child-molester.”

“Oh dear, what can we do about that?”

“I know, we can ask old Jake, the school caretaker, to keep a lookout for any possible child-molesters.”

“Great. That’s sorted then. No-one can accuse use of not taking good care of our kids.”

The section on ‘Public Health Concerns’ in the NRPB Report, 2004, ends with the following statement:

“The Board believes that the main conclusions reached in the Stewart Report in 2000 still apply today and that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies should continue to be adopted.”

It could be strongly argued that a precautionary approach advocated specifically as a result of scientific evidence that ICNIRP guidelines may be inadequate for protection of health, but purportedly ‘implemented’ simply by following those same guidelines, is no precaution at all. Rather, it is a very un-subtle attempt to claim to be doing all that’s necessary whilst actually doing nothing – which could be validly construed as gross negligence.

Certainly it would seem to be a very strong argument against any costs ruling (since it shows that lack of confidence in ICNIRP certification is not unreasonable, but supported by scientific evidence as witnessed by the Stewart and NRPB Reports) – I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve been told by one who is that appealing against a costs ruling is not expensive and could save very large amounts of money. More than that, it could be a basis for questioning Government policy in respect of Human Rights.

Views on this from anyone with legal knowledge would be welcome. Meanwhile, irrespective of the legal ‘take’, this shows the total cynicism of the official claim to be adopting ‘a precautionary approach’.

Dr Grahame Blackwell
http://www.starweave.com


http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP
-----

Montag, 16. Oktober 2006

The highly dangerous mobile phone - Livsfarliga mobiltelefonen

For those of you that can read and understand Swedish, or get automatic translations, please note the following brand new article:

Johansson O, "Livsfarliga mobiltelefonen" (="The highly dangerous mobile phone", in Swedish), Västerbottens-Kuriren 2006-10-14
http://www.vk.se/Article.jsp?article=83313


Olle Johansson, assoc. prof.
The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm
Sweden
-----

User Status

Du bist nicht angemeldet.

Suche

 

Aktuelle Beiträge

Electromagnetic Fields:...
http://www.buergerwelle.de :8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/ stories/23639/
Starmail - 15. Nov, 22:28
The 5G War: Technology...
http://www.buergerwelle.de :8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/ stories/23605/
Starmail - 13. Sep, 12:23
EMF-Omega-News 2. March...
http://www.buergerwelle.de :8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/ stories/23398/
Starmail - 2. Mär, 09:24
5G and its small cell...
http://www.buergerwelle.de :8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/ stories/23394/
Starmail - 26. Feb, 05:41
Putting in tens of millions...
http://www.buergerwelle.de :8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/ stories/23391/
Starmail - 25. Feb, 08:44

Status

Online seit 2872 Tagen
Zuletzt aktualisiert: 15. Nov, 22:28

Credits

twoday.org

powered by Antville powered by Helma


  • xml version of this page

Health
Links
Research
Profil
Abmelden
Weblog abonnieren