PubMed: The fundamental reasons why laptop computers should not be used on your lap

From the Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering

2016 Dec 1;6(4):279-284. eCollection 2016.

The Fundamental Reasons Why Laptop Computers should not be Used on Your Lap.

Abstract

As a tendency to use new technologies, gadgets such as laptop computers are becoming more popular among students, teachers, businessmen and office workers. Today laptops are a great tool for education and learning, work and personal multimedia. Millions of men, especially those in the reproductive age, are frequently using their laptop computers on the lap (thigh). Over the past several years, our lab has focused on the health effects of exposure to different sources of electromagnetic fields such as cellular phones, mobile base stations, mobile phone jammers, laptop computers, radars, dentistry cavitrons and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Our own studies as well as the studies performed by other researchers indicate that using laptop computers on the lap adversely affects the male reproductive health. When it is placed on the lap, not only the heat from a laptop computer can warm men’s scrotums, the electromagnetic fields generated by laptop’s internal electronic circuits as well as the Wi-Fi Radiofrequency radiation hazards (in a Wi-Fi connected laptop) may decrease sperm quality. Furthermore, due to poor working posture, laptops should not be used on the lap for long hours.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28144597

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on PubMed: The fundamental reasons why laptop computers should not be used on your lap

Tennessee: Memphis city council members compare utility company to Gestapo

MLGW is Memphis Light, Gas & Water

From WMC Action News 5

By Kendall Downing
February 7, 2017

Video at link below

MEMPHIS, TN (WMC) – Tempers flared among Memphis City Council members toward MLGW over Smart Meters, even comparing MLGW to the Gestapo.

Some council members said the utility company is not listening to its customers.

A handful of council members said they’re strong arming people into getting a smart meter.

Councilman Joe Brown compared MLGW to the Gestapo in the way they were handling the rollout.

One of those blasting MLGW President Jerry Collins on Tuesday morning was Memphis City Councilwoman Janis Fullilove.

“You are showing blatant disrespect to this council,” Fullilove said.

She, and other members, said their phones were ringing off the hook with citizens upset with MLGW over smart meters that the customers did not want.

“We are being bombarded with calls from unhappy customers,” council member Jamita Swearengen said.

Fullilove said it has a large impact on customers, especially elderly customers.

“Many of these elderly people don’t know what to do when they say, ‘I don’t want them,’ and they put them on anyway,” Fullilove said.

In fact, arguments between councilman Joe Brown and Collins got to the point where committee chairperson Patrice Robinson had to call for order.

But, the sparring didn’t end there as council members Worth Morgan and Fullilove went at it.

Controversy continues to swirl over the smart meter rollout, which started last May and is expected to last until 2020. The meters eliminate the estimation of bills, as well as the meter reader job.

MLGW said 300,000 smart meters have been installed and 10,000 people have successfully opted out.

Collins said he only knows of 5-6 cases where smart meters were inadvertently installed. But, some council members insist that number is much higher.

“Anybody who says that MLGW doesn’t care about the customer is either making a really bad mistake, or they’re not telling the truth,” Collins said.

In December WMC Action News 5 investigators looked into problems with late bills that were related to the smart meter rollout. Collins said that happened because of a shortage of meter readers, and so more bills had to be estimated. He said billing will be back to normal this month.

Copyright 2017 WMC Action News 5. All rights reserved.

http://www.fox19.com/story/34450013/council-members-spar-over-smart-meters-compare-mlgw-to-gestapo

Posted under Fair Use Rules.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Tennessee: Memphis city council members compare utility company to Gestapo

Michigan: State representative seeking support for bill to ban opt-out fees

From WILX, News 10

February 7, 2017

LANSING, Mich. (WILX) - There's a move in the state legislature to get rid
of fees that utilities charge to customers who want to keep their "old
meters".

On Friday, News 10 reported Consumers Energy charges its customers a
one-time fee of $69.39 to opt-out of having an advanced meter installed on
their home.

There is a monthly fee of $9.72 after that to have a meter-reader come out.

This bill hasn't been formally introduced just yet and Representative Gary
Glenn (R-Midland) is working to get support for it.

In addition to waiving the opt-out fees, the legislation would allow home
owners to self-read their meter by just taking a picture of it and sending
it in.

The utility could check the meter quarterly to confirm they're not being
misled.

Rep. Glenn tells News 10 the choice should be up to the home owner. 

"As long as those utilities are a state privilege monopoly given the right
exclusively to deliver electricity, then we are going to protect homeowners
from that kind of monopoly policy," said Rep. Glenn. "Trying to force
certain technology on homeowners against their will or if they refuse to
have it installed, charge them.

Consumers Energy sent this written statement to News 10 Tuesday afternoon.

"Consumers Energy believes the present advanced meter technology program and
oversight by the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) have led to an
important and safe technology change for energy customers across Michigan.
We provide the option of a non-communicating meter to those customers who
choose not to take the upgraded meter technology. However, the upgraded
meter technology - which follows national testing for accuracy and safety -
provides customers with benefits including: accurate bills; insights into
their energy usage; billing and rate options and ways to help manage their
overall energy use. In 2015, according to the U.S. energy information
administration, there were about 64.7 million advanced meter installations
in the U.S.

Once the legislation is formally introduced the Michigan Energy Policy
Committee, which Rep. Glenn is the chair of, will hold a public hearing to
listen to your concerns.

Last year Attorney General Bill Schuette issued a legal opinion that
utilities don't have the authority to charge "opt-out" fees.

It was dismissed by the state Public Service Commission which oversees
utilities.

News 10 will let you know what happens with the bill.

http://www.wilx.com/content/news/State-representative-working-to-gain-support-for-smart-meter-legislation-413035753.html
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on Michigan: State representative seeking support for bill to ban opt-out fees

Are my toys playing with my DNA?

The author asks, “What is a really safe distance?”

No safe exposure level has ever been established. Research findings at various radiation levels show different aspects, not levels, of risk. Low power emissions sometimes have a greater effect than high power emissions, perhaps because low levels come closer to the body’s own electromagnetic emissions, and so there is less of a defense. 

Where safety lies in relation to distance and exposure level is unknown.

From Medium.com
Babulous
Nov 27, 2015

Last week, I got my first wearable. Before using it, I wanted to read up on it, to learn if it was safe to have on my person, 24/7. My goal was a blog about how to safely use gadgets. But I ended up learning a lot more than I expected. Let me start at the beginning.

My new $12 Mi Band is a barebones wearable from Xiaomi without even a dial to tell the time. What it does have is a motion sensor that counts my steps and monitors my sleep patterns. It also has a vibration motor as well as notification lights to communicate. I can set it to vibrate when I get a call, or receive messages, or as an alarm. The notification lights do some notifying. But decoding flashing lights is a bit too nerdy for me. The invisible cellphone unlock function is fun, and I happily buckled on the band.

Truth is stranger than fiction

My wife however didn’t share my excitement. She worries about the harm that gadgets may be doing to our bodies. She’s not into technology, but she’s aware her ear gets warm when she talks too long on her cellphone and it begins to hurt, and she intuitively knows that can’t be good.

My curiosity was tickled and I began to wonder if her worry was justified. Cellphones have become popular only in the last 10–15 years, and it may be too early to understand their effect on our bodies. So I read up about them.

What I found was an almost fictional tale of invisible rays, DNA cracking, ruthless corporates, global media manipulation, a crusading scientist whose house gets mysteriously burnt down, and more. In short, all the ingredients for a riveting Hollywood thriller.

I was more worried about my brains being cooked than cooking up a thriller. So I have stuck to my goal of a blog about safely using gadgets, though I have touched upon these stories, and given links for more details. However the blog is a bit longer than I expected. Getting at the truth was not easy with so many exposes, coverups and unverified stories.

Is history repeating itself?

It took nearly 50 years for the dangers of smoking to become accepted. The fact that tobacco was a huge cash generating industry with a powerful lobby may have something to do with it. But tobacco was miniscule compared to the size of the global cellphone industry, so it may be a case of deja vu.

What’s cooking

A cellular phone is basically a radio that sends signals on electromagnetic waves (microwaves) to its network’s cellular tower. The waves’ effect is like a microwave oven, but weaker. It’s measured as SAR (specific absorption rate), and a cellphone’s legal limit is 1.6 watts/kg. Cellphones with high SAR are more damaging. The harmful effects are increased by other factors like the cellphone’s signal strength, distance from your body, and time on your body. However, heating may not be where the real danger is. I’ll come back to this.

Hitting below the belt

Are our gadgets getting too close to for comfort?

All of us have first hand stories of the effects of cellphones. Mine is about a friend who used to drive around all day with his cellphone on the car seat between his thighs and up close to his unmentionables. He ended up visiting his doctor to complain about a pain in the unsaid part. The doctor advised him to keep his cellphone away from his body, and the pain vanished.

Reading between the lines

That’s when I first began to wonder if I was being too complacent about my toys. The problem is technology is so deeply interwoven with my life that it’s hard to avoid close contact with my gadgets. But if I can make some sense of the online info overload, maybe I can work out some guidelines for myself.

There is a lot of conflicting info on the internet about the danger of cellphone usage. So I tried to put two and two together. Like the fact that many insurance companies no longer cover health problems caused by cellphones radiation. Besides, 60% of insurance companies are refusing to cover cellphone makers and wireless carriers against future health damage suits, and forecasting brain tumour costs between 2020 and 2030.

The alarm bells began going off in my head.

Do cellphones cause cancer?

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are my toys playing with my DNA?

Power struggle: PG&E fights California towns to install Smart Meters

From Marin Independent Journal

PG&E to defy Fairfax wireless meter ban

by Richard Halstead
January 5, 2017

Michael Peevey listens to testimony in San Francisco in 2014 while he was president of the California Public Utilities Commission. In a 2010 email, he said that if PG&E customers did not want a wireless meter, it would be best to “quietly leave them alone.” (Jeff Chiu/Associated Press) 

A power struggle is shaping up between Fairfax and Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which announced it will resume installing so-called “smart” meters despite a renewed ban imposed by the Town Council.

PG&E has decided to resume installation beginning with 16 customers it says have expressed an interest in getting the meters.

Deanna Contreras, a PG&E spokeswoman, said PG&E sent the customers a letter giving them 30 days notice of its intentions, which they should have received in mid-January.

“We want our customers to know they have a choice; they can opt out,” Contreras said.

She said the first installations should begin within the next couple of weeks.

“This is the just the first wave,” Contreras said.

The new meters are electronic monitoring devices that continuously measure the electricity and natural gas use at households and businesses and relay data to the utility. The goal is to enable power companies to better understand patterns of power consumption throughout the day so they can adjust power generation accordingly.

Critics have raised questions about health risks from the wireless meters and other concerns, such as the potential for invasion of privacy from the hacking of the wireless component of the system.

The Town Council is not acquiescing to PG&E’s plans.
Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Power struggle: PG&E fights California towns to install Smart Meters

The fight for disabled rights – the 1977 504 sit-in and protests (VIDEO)

Civil rights for the disabled are a recent achievement. The disabled in many ways were excluded from ordinary participation in society. Their civil rights were only secured by much hard work, outreach, and protests, and it is still a partial and incomplete victory. Those who opposed granting equal access include hospitals, universities, and state and county governments.

In 1977, after years of lobbying for enforcement of their civil rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the disability community announced national sit-ins at U.S. Department of Health and Welfare offices. The sit-in in San Francisco’s HEW office lasted the longest – 28 days – until HEW Secretary Joseph Califano finally relented and agreed to sign the enforcement order that had been sitting on his desk.

The article below and short documentary cover the San Francisco protest. A delegation from this group was invited to Washington DC and included members who could not walk. With no handicapped access in those days, these individuals had to crawl up the steps of the capitol to attend meetings.

Enforcement since then has not been perfect, and the struggle is ongoing. Access is being denied for the EMF-disabled. Without work, struggle, and action, access will not be improved.


The Power of 504, 2010
18:20

Short History of the 504 Sit in

by Kitty Cone

In 1973 the first federal civil rights protection for people with disabilities, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was signed into law. What section 504 says is “no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States shall solely on the basis of his handicap, be excluded from the participation, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Essentially it said no program receiving federal funds could discriminate against a person with a disability.

Section 504 was based on the language of previous civil rights laws that protected women and minorities. It recognized that society has historically treated people with disabilities as second-class citizens based on deeply held fears and stereotypes that go way back. Those attitudes had translated into pity and persecution, and later into policies that were based on paternalism.

People with disabilities, ourselves didn’t think the issues we faced in our daily lives were the product of prejudice and discrimination. Disability had been defined by the medical model of rehabilitation, charity and paternalism. If I thought about why I couldn’t attend a university that was inaccessible, I would have said it was because I couldn’t walk, my own personal problem. Before section 504, responsibility for the consequences of disability rested only on the shoulders of the person with a disability rather than being understood as a societal responsibility. Section 504 dramatically changed that societal and legal perception.

Only with section 504 was the role of discrimination finally legally acknowledged. Sen. Hubert Humphrey, who had attempted in earlier years to pass civil rights legislation covering people with disabilities said about Section 504:

“the time has come to firmly establish the right of disabled Americans to dignity and self-respect as equal and contributing members of society and to end the virtual isolation of millions of children and adults.”

At that time, discrimination existed in education, employment, housing, transportation, access to public buildings and other facilities, access to equal medical care and in many other areas.

So, after the law was passed, in order for it to become effective, regulations had to be issued defining who was a disabled person, what did otherwise qualified mean, what constituted discrimination and nondiscrimination in the context of disability etc. Enforcement timelines had to be developed as well as an administrative enforcement mechanism. The regulations would provide a consistent, coherent interpretation of 504’s legal intent rather than leaving it up to any judge who heard a 504 case to interpret what the law meant.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The fight for disabled rights – the 1977 504 sit-in and protests (VIDEO)

Are you disabled by exposure to electromagnetic radiation and wireless devices? How does the Americans with Disabilities Act define disability?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides a definition of what disability is. It is not a list of “officially” recognized disabilities. That is a very important distinction.

Congress has been adamant that the ADA rules are to be interpreted broadly and that its priority is ending discrimination against the disabled. In 2008, Congress revised the ADA, further explaining and expanding it to stop court decisions that were restricting ADA’s application. Then in 2016, Congress further revised ADA and broadened its coverage. The ADA is one of the best and most inspiring pieces of legislation that Congress has enacted.

Below are excerpts from the 2008 and 2016 revisions with the federal definition of disability. Knowing this definition can help a person who is seeking reasonable accommodation for access and services as well as describing to their health professionals about the limitations they are experiencing.

http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm

Americans With Disabilities Act Of 1990, As Amended 2008

Sec. 12102. Definition of disability

As used in this chapter:

(1) Disability. The term “disability” means, with respect to an individual

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)).

(2) Major Life Activities

(A) In general. For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

(B) Major bodily functions. For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/08/11/2016-17417/amendment-of-americans-with-disabilities-act-title-ii-and-title-iii-regulations-to-implement-ada

Americans With Disabilities Act new rules, effective 10-11-16

§ 35.108 Definition of “disability.”

(a)(1) Disability means, with respect to an individual:

(i) A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual;

(ii) A record of such an impairment; or

(iii) Being regarded as having such an impairment as described in paragraph (f) of this section.

(2) Rules of construction. (i) The definition of “disability” shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA.

(b)(1) Physical or mental impairment means:

(i) Any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine; or

(ii) Any mental or psychological disorder such as intellectual disability, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disability.

(2) Physical or mental impairment includes, but is not limited to, contagious and noncontagious diseases and conditions such as the following: orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing impairments, and cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, intellectual disability, emotional illness, dyslexia and other specific learning disabilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Human Immunodeficiency Virus infection (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic), tuberculosis, drug addiction, and alcoholism.

(c)(1) Major life activities include, but are not limited to:

(i) Caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, writing, communicating, interacting with others, and working; and

(ii) The operation of a major bodily function, such as the functions of the immune system, special sense organs and skin, normal cell growth, and digestive, genitourinary, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, cardiovascular, endocrine, hemic, lymphatic, musculoskeletal, and reproductive systems. The operation of a major bodily function includes the operation of an individual organ within a body system.

(2) Rules of construction. (i) In determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, the term major shall not be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard.

(ii) Whether an activity is a major life activity is not determined by reference to whether it is of central importance to daily life.

(d) Substantially limits—(1) Rules of construction. The following rules of construction apply when determining whether an impairment substantially limits an individual in a major life activity.

(i) The term “substantially limits” shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. “Substantially limits” is not meant to be a demanding standard.

(ii) The primary object of attention in cases brought under title II of the ADA should be whether public entities have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not the extent to which an individual’s impairment substantially limits a major life activity. Accordingly, the threshold issue of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity should not demand extensive analysis.

(iii) An impairment that substantially limits one major life activity does not need to limit other major life activities in order to be considered a substantially limiting impairment.

(iv) An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.

(v) An impairment is a disability within the meaning of this part if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population. An impairment does not need to prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity in order to be considered substantially limiting. Nonetheless, not every impairment will constitute a disability within the meaning of this section.

(vi) The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity requires an individualized assessment. However, in making this assessment, the term “substantially limits” shall be interpreted and applied to require a degree of functional limitation that is lower than the standard for substantially limits applied prior to the ADA Amendments Act.

(vii) The comparison of an individual’s performance of a major life activity to the performance of the same major life activity by most people in the general population usually will not require scientific, medical, or statistical evidence. Nothing in this paragraph (d)(1) is intended, however, to prohibit or limit the presentation of scientific, medical, or statistical evidence in making such a comparison where appropriate.

(viii) The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity shall be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures. However, the ameliorative effects of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity. Ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses are lenses that are intended to fully correct visual acuity or to eliminate refractive error.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Are you disabled by exposure to electromagnetic radiation and wireless devices? How does the Americans with Disabilities Act define disability?

U.S. Access Board advocates for the EMF-disabled and reducing electromagnetic fields in buildings — the 2005 Indoor Environmental Quality report

After acknowledging electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS) in 2002, the U.S. Access Board contracted with the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) to develop an Indoor Environmental Quality project, the first step in the Access Board’s “action plan to reduce the level of chemicals and electromagnetic fields in the built environment” for the EMF-disabled and those disabled by multiple chemical sensitivities.

In 2005, NIBS released a 97-page Indoor Environmental Quality report, containing extensive recommendations and resources. The report and its sections are on the Access Board’s website here

https://www.access-board.gov/research/building/indoor-environmental-quality/ 

A PDF of the entire report as it was released in 2005 is here:

(Links in the quotes below may not be working links, but these documents are still available.)

Excerpts

Introduction

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) is an independent federal agency devoted to accessibility for people with disabilities. The Access Board is responsible for developing and maintaining accessibility guidelines to ensure that newly constructed and altered buildings and facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Architectural Barriers Act are accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. In November 1999, the Access Board issued a proposed rule to revise and update its accessibility guidelines. During the public comment period on the proposed rule, the Access Board received approximately 600 comments from individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) and electromagnetic sensitivities (EMS). They reported that chemicals released from products and materials used in construction, renovation, and maintenance of buildings, electromagnetic fields, and inadequate ventilation are barriers that deny them access to most buildings.

There are a significant number of people who are sensitive to chemicals and electromagnetic fields. Surveys conducted by the California and New Mexico Departments of Health and by medical researchers in North Carolina found 16 to 33 percent of the people interviewed reported that they are unusually sensitive to chemicals, and in the California and New Mexico health departments’ surveys 2 percent to 6 percent reported that they have been diagnosed as having multiple chemical sensitivities. C. Miller and N. Ashford, “Multiple Chemical Intolerance and Indoor Air Quality,” in Indoor Air Quality Handbook Chapter 27.8 (McGraw-Hill 2001). Another California Department of Health Services survey has found that 3 percent of the people interviewed reported that they are unusually sensitive to electric appliances or power lines. P. LeVallois, et al., “Prevalence and Risk Factors of Self-Reported Hypersensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields in California,” in California EMF Program, “An Evaluation of the Possible Risks From Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs From Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupations and Appliances, Draft 3 for Public Comment, April 2001” Appendix 3 (http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ehib/emf/RiskEvaluation/riskeval.html).

Individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities, who submitted written comments and/or attended the public information meetings on the draft final rule, requested that the Access Board include provisions in the final rule to make buildings and facilities accessible for them.

The Board has not included such provisions in their rules, but they have taken the commentary very seriously and acted upon it. As stated in the Background [this is in the General Issues section] for its Final Rule Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities; Recreation Facilities: http://www.access-board.gov/recreation/final.htm [no longer working link – see below – 1]

The Board recognizes that multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered disabilities under the ADA if they so severely impair the neurological, respiratory or other functions of an individual that it substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities. The Board plans to closely examine the needs of this population, and undertake activities that address accessibility issues for these individuals.

The Board plans to develop technical assistance materials on best practices for accommodating individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities. The Board also plans to sponsor a project on indoor environmental quality. In this project, the Board will bring together building owners, architects, building product manufacturers, model code and standard-setting organizations, individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities, and other individuals. This group will examine building design and construction issues that affect the indoor environment, and develop an action plan that can be used to reduce the level of chemicals and electromagnetic fields in the built environment.”

This report and the recommendations included within are a direct outgrowth from that public comment process. The Access Board contracted with the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) to establish this Indoor Environmental Quality Project as a first step in implementing that action plan.

The overall objectives of this project were to establish a collaborative process among a range of stakeholders to recommend practical, implementable actions to both improve access to buildings for people with MCS and EMS while at the same time raising the bar and improving indoor environmental quality to create healthier buildings for the entire population. This IEQ project supports and helps achieve the goals of the Healthy Buildings, Healthy People project, which acknowledges that “We will create indoor environments that are healthier for everyone by making indoor environments safer for the most vulnerable among us, especially children.” (p.17)

Summary Recommendations

The recommendations in this report are only a first step toward the action plan envisioned by the Access Board.

[1 – Link to Final Rule:
http://web.archive.org/web/20051103220404/http://www.access-board.gov/recreation/final.pdf  ]]

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on U.S. Access Board advocates for the EMF-disabled and reducing electromagnetic fields in buildings — the 2005 Indoor Environmental Quality report

U.S. Access Board recognized electromagnetic sensitivity as real and a potential disability in 2002

Advancing full access and inclusion for all”

In 2002, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, also known as the United States Access Board, issued new accessibility guidelines for recreation facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The Access Board is an independent federal agency that promotes equality for people with disabilities through leadership in accessible design and the development of accessibility guidelines and standards. Founded in 1973…”

During the process of developing these guidelines, the Board held public hearings, and it received “substantial” comment from those who are electromagnetically sensitive. In its final rule, the Access Board stated:

  • The Board recognizes electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered a disability under the ADA if they so severely impair neurological, respiratory or other functions of an individual that it substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities.

  • The Board planned to develop technical assistance materials on best practices to accommodate the electromagnetically sensitive.

  • The Board planned to sponsor a project on indoor environmental quality which would develop an action plan for reducing electromagnetic fields in the built environment.

Here is the statement from the Final Rule, published in the Federal Register, September 3, 2002:

General Issues

Multiple Chemical Sensitivities and Electromagnetic Sensitivities

Individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities submitted a substantial number of written comments and attended the public information meetings on the draft final rule. They reported that chemicals used in recreation facilities, such as chlorine used in swimming pools and spas, and pesticides and synthetic fertilizers used on golf courses, are barriers that deny them access to those facilities. They requested the Board to include provisions in the final rule to make recreation facilities accessible for them.

The Board recognizes that multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered disabilities under the ADA if they so severely impair the neurological, respiratory or other functions of an individual that it substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities. The Board plans to closely examine the needs of this population, and undertake activities that address accessibility issues for these individuals.

The Board plans to develop technical assistance materials on best practices for accommodating individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities. The Board also plans to sponsor a project on indoor environmental quality. In this project, the Board will bring together building owners, architects, building product manufacturers, model code and standard-setting organizations, individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities, and other individuals. This group will examine building design and construction issues that affect the indoor environment, and develop an action plan that can be used to reduce the level of chemicals and electromagnetic fields in the built environment.

Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 170 /Tuesday, September 3, 2002 /Rules and Regulations

Here is the PDF of the final rule

The original link (no longer available) was http://www.access-board.gov/recreation/final.htm

The Federal Register notice can be found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20051103220404/http://www.access-board.gov/recreation/final.pdf

The Access Board then commissioned an Indoor Environmental Quality report in 2005 to address these issues.

Full report

https://www.access-board.gov/research/building/indoor-environmental-quality/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on U.S. Access Board recognized electromagnetic sensitivity as real and a potential disability in 2002

Mobile phone radiation, an underestimated disease factor: Summary of lecture to Swiss physicians organization

Translation by Mieux Prevenir

24 January 2017

Mobile phone radiation, an underestimated disease factor
www.buergerwelle.de, 18 January 2017 (translated from German by Google with grammatical corrections)

Lecture given by Peter Schlegel dipl. Ing. ETH at the special event “Electrosmog and its effects on the body” organized by the Swiss medical association SSAAMP on October 13, 2016 in Zurich. Participants were around 100 medical professionals.

The lecture was a version of 62 lecture notes supplemented by additional presentations (not presented at the event for reasons of time). For a better understanding, some slides with explanations and comments were added at the oral presentation. The presentations were based on Swiss conditions.

The lecture material is hereby released by the author as a PDF file [in German] for further use. The author asks for notification when elements of this presentation are adopted for public use. Please use source code.

Presenters:

– Ao Univ. Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Mosgöller [Medical University of Vienna]: “Genotoxic effects of high-frequency electromagnetic fields – a project report”

– Prof. Dr. Dr. habil. Klaus Buchner MEP: “Effects of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation on hormones, neurotransmitters and oxidative stress”

The lectures were held before an above-average audience of medical specialists. This interest was in pleasant contrast to the well-known defensive attitude of many conventional physicians towards the subject… Countless electrosensitive people complain that they are not taken seriously by their doctor. Where medical faculties use a lecturer close to the mobile and electricity sectors to present this topic, the young medical generation is being indoctrinated by this unfortunate misunderstanding of the facts.

In the conclusion of his lecture, Peter Schlegel listed necessary measures to be taken in public health and medical practice:

– The establishment of “white” (mobile-free) zones for severely affected persons is urgently necessary as a survival measure, although a “ghetto effect” is not ideal. In the medium to long term, the mobile spectrum must be massively reduced across the country.
– The university education of doctors must be adapted immediately. In electro-medical applications, electrosensitivity – based on experience – has long been recognized and therapeutically relevant.
– The cooperation of physicians with independent measuring and consulting specialists (i.e. building biologists with professional measurement training) should be intensified. For such professionals, a recognized profession is to be created in order to increase competency and supply capacity.
– Hospitals, retirement homes, rehabilitation clinics, etc. are to be kept free of mobile radiation, especially Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and DECT radiation, as an immediate measure in at least one part of the rooms.
– Physicians are encouraged to consult the EUROPAEM guideline in their practice. Patients should be properly informed about the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and electrosensitivity (EHS) (refer to AefU’s [Doctors for the Protection of the Environment] and concerned organizations’ flyers in waiting rooms).

SSAAMP Lecture by Peter Schlegel, 62 films (0Mb)

www.buergerwelle.de, January 18, 2017

SSAAMP is the Swiss Society for Anti-Aging Medicine and Prevention

Original article in German:
http://www.buergerwelle.de/de/themen/gesundheit/vortrag_ssaamp.html

http://mieuxprevenir.blogspot.co.za/2017/01/mobile-phone-radiation-underestimated.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Mobile phone radiation, an underestimated disease factor: Summary of lecture to Swiss physicians organization