Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Edward Snowden: Apple iPhone with Secret iFeature Allows Government to Spy on You
Tech Times ^ | January 24, 9:59 AM | Aaron Mamiit

Posted on 01/24/2015 8:40:48 PM PST by DUMBGRUNT

Apple's iPhone has "special software" that authorities can activate remotely to be able to gather information about the user.

(Excerpt) Read more at techtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Humor; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: apple; edwardsnowden; iphone; snowden; tinfoilalert
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: Swordmaker

The finance section of the company worked for had NO networking connections outside of the room. Usb and other ports were filled with hot glue!

Used to think that was a bit much.

Not any more, but can they function in todays world?


41 posted on 01/25/2015 7:57:16 AM PST by DUMBGRUNT (BINGO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: upchuck; Candor7

I imagine you must have simple lives with no dependents or loved ones counting on you, or whom you wish to keep tabs on. Everywhere I am, I can receive communication about my minor children. What I find unnecessary are land line phones because I’m never sitting by one. I need to know if my driving child is in trouble and if my child got sick at preschool.

Communication can save lives and prevent danger. I lived before cell phones but it’s not a “newfangled crazy thing” to me. It’s an amazing bit of tech I don’t want to be without.


42 posted on 01/25/2015 8:10:49 AM PST by Yaelle (No Cruz? Then "I'm Ready for Hillary; What Difference Does It Make?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: 867V309
Sounds to me like you are saying that your little "time wasters" spy on you, but that's OK because they're entertaining and cheap.

That is fairly accurate. They are entertaining, cheap and extremely useful. I have no illusions that they can not be intrusive as well. Knowing what I do about how they work and what their capabilities are... I would take additional precautions if organizations or individuals had any reason to "spy on me". Intelligent criminals take additional precautions which is why their usefulness for keeping track of truly bad guys is questionable.

These days anyone can obtain a new or used "smart phone" through completely legal or illegal sources using anonymous transactions. You can now also sign up for inexpensive data and airtime with no contract and provide information that would be difficult to trace as well. This is how criminals and terrorists currently do it. How does the government keep track of someone who swaps them out with a different anonymous device every few days, or even every hour if they want. The devices are very inexpensive and there are a plethora of prepaid or no contract plans that can be paid for with anonymous funds.

Anyone with any smarts has known for years that cellular devices are not secure. This is not a revelation. However anyone who has ever watched any type of "spy movie" has known for years that all one has to do to get around this is to use a device that would be difficult to trace back to you, and then swap them frequently. This is now easier than ever.

Our government's answer to this is countless acres and billions of dollars worth of computer storage and processing devices that record and process virtually every bit of data coming from originating from the electronic devices of every law abiding person in the world hoping that they can sift through all of it quick enough to keep track of the thousands of bad guys which they are allowing to enter our country every day.

We are being spied on by our own government at an unprecedented level, but it seems a lot like bombing the Hồ Chí Minh trail... much of the traffic was by bicycle or carts pulled by people and animals and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of bombs and more explosives than were dropped on all of Germany during WWII did little to stop the flow of arms and supplies. We have a government that chooses not to secure our borders and allows hundreds of thousands of radical Muslims and others who hate our society to migrate here both legally and illegally. It is a dangerous political shell game. The level of stupidity is awesome but not surprising coming from a government bureaucracy.


44 posted on 01/25/2015 9:43:23 AM PST by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

You might an annual CAT scan of your mastoid area behind your ear(s). Catch it early.


45 posted on 01/25/2015 10:56:14 AM PST by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith
The only way to safely use a cell phone is to keep the thing away from your ear, using a blue tooth arrangement continuously.

You want to roll the dice? Go ahead. But not me!

I have had 3 friends who would go around with their cell stuck to their ear for hours each day, they were real talkative gossipers...and each of them acquired tumors behind their mastoid area, and they had to have their inner and middle ears surgically removed to take out the tumors that had developed. That was enough for me.I believe the Swedish study set out below. **********************************************

Cancer: Strong Signal for Cell Phone Effects

M. Nathaniel Mead

With 3 billion cell phone users worldwide and more than 260 million in the United States alone—among them 46% of U.S. children aged 8–12, according to Nielsen Mobile figures released 10 September 2008—human exposure to low-energy radiation in the 800- to 2,000-megahertz range is at an all-time high. The most recent attempt to systematically review the epidemiologic evidence for increased risk of brain tumors related to cell phone use indicates that repercussions from this global experiment are coming to light. In a meta-analysis published in the May 2008 issue of the International Journal of Oncology, Swedish researchers found significant associations between long-term cell phone use and brain tumor risk.

“We found that cell phone use is linked to gliomas [malignant brain tumors] and acoustic neuromas [benign tumors of the brain’s auditory nerve] and are showing up after only ten years,” says lead author Lennart Hardell, an oncologist and cancer epidemiologist at University Hospital in Örebro, Sweden. Specifically, for studies that included at least 10 years of exposure, there was a doubling in the risk of gliomas for ipsilateral (same-side) but not contralateral (opposite-side) exposures to the head (as reflected by which hand the subject typically used to hold his/her cell phone). A 2.4-fold increase in risk was seen for acoustic neuromas due to ipsilateral exposures, whereas no increased risk occurred for meningiomas (tumors that occur in the membranes covering the brain and spinal cord).

“Clearly we need more studies of long-term cell phone usage to better assess the cancer risks,” says coauthor Michael Carlberg. Cell phones have been in mainstream usage for only a decade or so, and yet radiation-induced brain tumors normally take about 10–15 years to develop, according to the American Cancer Society.

Hardell’s research team was itself the source of several studies included in the meta-analysis. In the October 2006 issue of the World Journal of Surgical Oncology, the investigators reported a 70% increased risk of grade III–IV astrocytomas (highly aggressive brain tumors) for analog cell phone users. This same study found a nearly 4-fold increase in risk for acoustic neuromas after 15 years of exposure to analog cell phones. Notably, there was no increased risk for testicular cancer, B-cell lymphoma, or salivary gland tumors, suggesting that the findings were not due to observational or recall bias, as such bias should have existed for all tumor types.

To address whether their earlier studies may have skewed the conclusions of their 2008 meta-analysis, the team omitted their own studies from the analysis and still found significantly increased risk for gliomas and nonsignificantly increased risk for acoustic neuromas (50% and 210% increases, respectively) for ipsilateral exposures. “We are now seeing a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma,” says coauthor Kjell Hansson Mild, a radiation physicist at Umeå University, Sweden. “Not only our own studies are showing this but also all other studies that have included at least ten years as a latency period.”

Emerging evidence suggests that children may be more vulnerable to the potential carcinogenic effects of cell phones and other microwave-emitting technologies. “Concerns about children’s potential vulnerability to RF [radiofrequency] fields have been raised because of the potentially greater susceptibility of their developing nervous systems,” says Leeka Kheifets, an epidemiology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and former director of the Electric Power Research Institute EMF research program. “In addition, their brain tissue is more conductive, RF penetration is greater relative to head size, and they will have a longer lifetime of exposure [although the degree of risk for any carcinogen will be primarily determined by the exact timing and magnitude of exposure].”

The importance of a thinner skull and differing dielectric properties is confirmed by a study in the 7 June 2008 issue of Physics in Medicine and Biology showing that a child’s brain absorbs up to twice as much RF as an adult brain. Children today will experience a longer period of exposure because they start using cell phones at an earlier age, according to Hardell; this might be important, because cumulative dose seems to have a strong influence on increased risk of brain tumors. Kheifets adds, however, that “data are lacking on effects of exposures on brain tumors in children . . . [and] other health effects need to be looked at as well.”

The wireless industry takes a cautious view of the research. “The weight of the scientific evidence and the conclusions of a large number of expert scientific reviews show that wireless phones do not pose a health risk,” says Joseph Farren, assistant vice president for public affairs with CTIA–The Wireless Association. “The industry supports continued research as technology continues to evolve, but wishes to stress the fact that there is a consensus among leading health organizations regarding published scientific research showing no reason for concern.”

Hardell concedes it is too soon to determine a safe limit for cell phone use. “Can we say that a ten-minute call is equal to ten one-minute calls?” he asks. “Until we answer such questions, we cannot establish a new limit or even state which parameters or units help define that limit. Nonetheless, since we do see an increased risk of brain tumors, it is necessary to apply the precautionary principle in this situation, especially for long-range exposures that are likely to affect children in particular.” In practice, this might involve limiting children’s use of cell phones and using speaker phones to minimize direct exposure to the head.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2569116/

46 posted on 01/25/2015 11:16:05 AM PST by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
Under CALEA all software and hardware are required to give the government a backdoor key or access in some way.

CALEA does not apply to individual devices. Had it applied to individual devices it would have been un-Constitutional in 1994 when it was passed. It is a CARRIER level law and it does do what you say. . . but read the ACT. It says NOTHING about inserting anything in consumer devices. Everyone who makes these claims about cell phones assumes that CALEA covers them, but it simply does not. The law is directed to PHONE COMPANIES and WIRELESS CARRIERS and the equipment manufacturers who make the hardware to implement the CARRIERS' activities. Not individual consumers.

The law states its purpose is:

"To amend title 18, United States Code, to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for Law Enforcement purposes, and for other purposes.

47 posted on 01/25/2015 12:08:02 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cellular-phones


48 posted on 01/25/2015 12:51:39 PM PST by Don W (When blacks riot, neighborhoods and cities burn. When whites riot, nations and continents burn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

I have been involved in telecom for 30 years and have to be very aware various laws, ammended petitions and FCC over reach.

CALEA was, in fact, used as the basis for FBI petition to include wireless, VoIP and Internet.

The second the law was passed, several agencies sued in court for expansion and inclusion, as they interpreted and it was granted.

In 1999, the FCC approved many of the FBI’s demands, including a proposal to turn cellular and other wireless “PHONES” into tracking devices.

“Stingray” is just one of the many products of this overly broad interpretation but, it wasn’t the basis for my original comment.


49 posted on 01/25/2015 12:52:43 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Candor7; Swordmaker

@Candor7: Thanks for your 2008 reference. However, if you check the references on your link you end up with this 2012 paper:

Epidemiology. 2012 Mar;23(2):301-7. Mobile phone use and incidence of glioma in the Nordic countries 1979-2008: consistency check.
Deltour I1, Auvinen A, Feychting M, Johansen C, Klaeboe L, Sankila R, Schüz J.

CONCLUSION: No clear trend change in glioma incidence rates was observed. Several of the risk increases seen in case-control studies appear to be incompatible with the observed lack of incidence rate increase in middle-aged men. This suggests longer induction periods than currently investigated, lower risks than reported from some case-control studies, or the absence of any association.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22249239

In plain English: You may use your cellular phone without risk.

A side remark: Can you comment on the energy required to break a bond?


50 posted on 01/25/2015 1:45:56 PM PST by AdmSmith (GCTGATATGTCTATGATTACTCAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Could you please explain the significance of the date?


51 posted on 01/25/2015 2:13:51 PM PST by generally (Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
Hardell’s research team was itself the source of several studies included in the meta-analysis. In the October 2006 issue of the World Journal of Surgical Oncology, the investigators reported a 70% increased risk of grade III–IV astrocytomas (highly aggressive brain tumors) for analog cell phone users. This same study found a nearly 4-fold increase in risk for acoustic neuromas after 15 years of exposure to analog cell phones. Notably, there was no increased risk for testicular cancer, B-cell lymphoma, or salivary gland tumors, suggesting that the findings were not due to observational or recall bias, as such bias should have existed for all tumor types.

You do realize that science move on? When I posted to you above, the American Cancer Society listed this 2008 Swedish meta-analysis as an outlier and not exemplar of the current state of research in cellular phone research. Notice that the meta-analysis was, in many ways, self-referential. "Hardell’s research team was itself the source of several studies included in the meta-analysis." That is considered a "no, no" in Meta-Analysis, citing your own research as evidentiary. . . and is a red-flag for peer-review raising questions of preferential selection. Later studies have pretty much falsified the findings. That's why it's considered an outlier.

Secondly, unlike M. Nathaniel Mead, the author of your quoted article, I actually took the time to read Hardell's paper. . . and found that many of the Hardell studies did not involve CELLULAR PHONES as Mead reports, but rather involved analog 900 MHz - 1900MHz wireless phone hand sets in the home to a base station which then connected to a land line. These short-range hand held wireless phones required far higher power than do modern short-range digital wireless phones to transmit intelligible information, while digital signals transmit the data in discrete micro-bursts, rather than continuous waves. Being digital, the signal strength can be far lower than an analog signal and still carry intelligible information. In other words, the Swedish study was not about Cellular phones but wireless handsets. Hardell extrapolated the data from these handsets to include similar results from the higher frequency, but far lower energy cellular phones.

Thirdly, I manage a dental office. . . and see reports from the dental industry. If what you say is true, we would see a massive increase in tumors in the jaw and temporal joint area. We have not. It simply is not happening.

Fourthly, even the 2.4 increase in risk the Swedish meta-analysis came up with means that over a 60 year life time, according to the American Cancer Society, the potential of developing a tumor increases from the current rate of 0.26% rate to a mere 0.624% in a 60 year exposure window.

FINALLY, with over two and a half BILLION cellular phones in use around the world for more than 20 years, we could expect an epidemic of astrocytomas, gliomas, and non-cancerous acoustic neuromas. Candor7, it simply is not happening. There is no increase in the largest "control group" there is. . . the 2.5 billion cellular phone users in the world using their phones every day for normal use, exposing themselves to the normal emissions of their phones.

You might an annual CAT scan of your mastoid area behind your ear(s). Catch it early.

Your recommendation to Yaelle is REALLY bad advice, Candor7. It is far more likely to cause cancer than any amount of cell phone exposure could ever cause. In our office, we use diagnostic radiography in the course of doing dentistry. . . including 3D radialtomagraphy. That is a specialized CAT scan that takes up to 360 individual xRay image "slices" through the skull and then builds a 3D image in false colors showing all the tissue and bone structures. We attempt to do this with the minimal radiation exposure possible but it is always a risk which we prefer to minimize. You just suggested she get one yearly to detect a highly unlikely event. Absurd.

Out of your phobia, you are spreading FUD, Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, based on bad science:

. . . a single CT scan subjects the human body to between 150 and 1,100 times the radiation of a conventional x-ray, or around a year's worth of exposure to radiation from both natural and artificial sources in the environment.
I am not a physician nor even a dentist. . . but I am quite familiar with these things. You apparently believe what you read on the Internet from fear mongers. As I said, science moves on. . . and the science has NOT found what you are spreading fear about.
52 posted on 01/25/2015 2:27:51 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
CALEA was, in fact, used as the basis for FBI petition to include wireless, VoIP and Internet.

At the carrier level.

53 posted on 01/25/2015 2:29:54 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: generally
Could you please explain the significance of the date?

Certainly. The paper was written about a technology SEVEN years old. It was released for general distribution for eyes to see in the agency only a few months after Apple opened the App Store. . . meaning that the iPhone was capable of accepting APPS at all. This was what Eric Snowden knew about iPhones. He released this in 2013 when he first stated that iPhones could be compromised and this was his evidence. . . at that time a FIVE year old document about a phone that was obsolete. The technology used in modern iPhones is completely different today. The original iPhone did not encrypt anything. We are currently FIVE generations removed from when this paper that Snowden based his 2013 claim on. He has not been back into the NSA since then to update anything about his knowledge. Modern iPhones do encrypt data to 256 bit AES standards. Snowden has released nothing more on this subject. . . except this third hand hearsay.

This document claims that even then it required physical access to the iPhone to compromise it. It was that document's release in 2013 that caused all the upset that resulted in the German government banning the use of iOS devices, despite it being so outdated. . . and NOTHING being found on Angela Merket's iPhone. Mere suspicion was sufficient all based on a five year old document and despite the fact her iPhone was less than a year old. Forensic specialists went over it and found nothing in it. . . but the mere possibility that it had been intercepted before she had received it was enough to stop using it.

54 posted on 01/25/2015 3:17:49 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

the American Cancer Society listed this 2008 Swedish meta-analysis as an outlier and not exemplar of the current state of research in cellular phone research. >>>>>>>

I disagree. I have seen the damage that cellular phones do.Tumors in the ear area. No research has been done with the genuine exposures that many people have because they spend hours each day on cell phones. Thats a lot of radiation.

I agree with the Swedish study, it shows that tumors are created by that radiation. I have no concern about analog or cellular, other that the fact that creating a tumor with a cellular phone might take longer.

It takes 10 to 15 years to grow a tumor as a result of cell phone use in adults. But I have seen it work a lot faster in women and children.

You can caterwaul all you want about fear mongering. I know that the long term use of cell phones are really bad for any human being. Anyone who looks at the vase of any microwave tower can easily conclude the same. Nothing grows there.


55 posted on 01/26/2015 9:27:58 PM PST by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith

In plain English: You may use your cellular phone without risk>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Don’t be silly. There is a high risk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNSztN7wJc#t=10


56 posted on 01/26/2015 9:46:36 PM PST by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
I disagree. I have seen the damage that cellular phones do.Tumors in the ear area. No research has been done with the genuine exposures that many people have because they spend hours each day on cell phones. Thats a lot of radiation.

No, it is not. Correlation is not causation. Nor are anecdotes evidence. As I said, the greatest CONTROL GROUP there is are the billions of cellular phone users out there in the world who have been using digital and analog cell phones for multiple years. That is multiple millions of man years of exposure with NO increase in the incidences of these cancers at all. The incidence of these cancers REMAINS at the historical levels despite the increased cellular phone usage. IF what you claim is true there would be an epidemic rise in such cancers. THERE ARE NO SUCH INCREASES BEING REPORTED! That closes the case. Your data are outdated and falsified by later studies.

You are a "TRUE BELIEVER". . . not following the science. Believe what you want, but YOU are the one caterwauling and mongering fear about Cell phone usage based on what has been PROVED to be outdated science.

Anyone who looks at the vase (sic) of any microwave tower can easily conclude the same. Nothing grows there.

Oh? "Nothing grows there." Really? Are you certain of your "facts?" Just like you are certain of your facts about cell phones causing cancer? Look at these cell phone towers:



Is that enough evidence, or should I continue hoisting you on your own petard? The reason most cell towers don't have plants growing below them is that the cell companies PAVE the ground below them so they don't have to maintain the plants and weed them. It's cheaper than paying groundsmen and gardeners for every site. However, if the local codes require landscaping, they have landscaping! SHEESH!

57 posted on 01/26/2015 10:27:31 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Woggle on all ya want. Cell phones are dangerous, and microwave towers with unsheilded wave guides do not have anything growing on the ground in a radius of about 8 feet.
Thanks for the photos of cell towers that have shielded wave guides.Many are not.

Glue that effer to your ear, and in a few years you will likely have something behind your mastoid that you do not want.

************************************

http://www.rfsafe.com/evidence-cell-phone-hazards/

Tobart, Tas – Since 2011, when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified cell phone radiation as a possible human carcinogen, a number of important developments that strengthens the IARC ruling have recently occurred. These developments strongly suggest that it is now time to issue public health warnings to advice Australians on how to reduce or eliminate cell phone health risks.

• On January 7, 2013, a report was released by the Bioinitiative Working Group that reviewed over 1800 new scientific studies. The 21 chapter report, written by 29 scientists and public health experts concluded, in part, that there is a consistent pattern of increased risk of malignant brain tumours with prolonged use of cell phones and cordless phones.

• On January 3, 2013 A Swedish meta-analysis of previous data on brain tumour risk and the use of cell phones concluded that the existing radiofrequency exposure standards are not adequate to protect public health.

• December 2012: A study of cell phone users in Saudi Arabia, where cell phone use is one of the highest in the world, found that prolonged use of cell phones was associated with a number of health problems, including fatigue, headaches, dizziness, tension and sleep disturbance.

• In December 2012 the American Academy of Pediatrics, a medical organization of around 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical specialists and surgeons called for action to protect children and teenagers from possible cell phone hazards.

• In October 2012 the Italian Supreme court ruled that a businessman’s brain tumour was caused by his use of a cell phone for 12 years. That ruling is not reversible and stands.

• In August 2012 the Australian government established a $2.5 million fund for a Centre of Research Excellence to continue research on the possibility of health risks from cell phone use.

A report has just been written which advises people on steps to take to reduce the risks to their health. This advice, in part, includes:

* Use a hands-free device. Use text messaging.

* Keeping the phone away from the user head with a minimum of 15mm as recommended by Apple in the user manual page 6 iPhone and 25mm by Blackberry.

* Purchase a low radiation phone (low Specific Absorption Rate-SAR).

CELL PHONE HAZARDS HEALTH –

By William Thomas

The evidence is in on cell phone hazards – and it is overwhelming. Even at typical low power, cell phones and wireless technology cause severe biological disturbances in human cells. In August 2007, 26 medical and public health experts their Bioinitiative Report – available online – reviewing all the literature on the effects of electromagnetic radiation

Cell phone researchers not in the pay of cell phone corporations agree on three things:

1. Current guidelines based only on the heating effects of cell phones do not address non-heating damage to DNA, nor the effects of frequency modulation used to broadcast information and are completely inadequate to safeguard public health. Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is should not be used as a basis for a safety standard since it regulates against thermal effects only.

So far cell phone “safety codes” only regulate radiation capable of burning skin. It’s like saying cigarettes aren’t dangerous unless they burn you.

Cellphone manufactures insist that “many studies” show their miniature microwave ovens are safe. But when pressed by the Washington Post to back up their claim, the cellphone industry could cite no studies showing no adverse impact from cellular telephones on human tissues, nervous systems or organs.

Dr. George Carlo confirms: “The industry had come out and said that there were thousands of studies that proved that wireless phones are safe, and the fact was that there were no studies that were directly relevant.”

There are more than 15,000 scientific studies reporting the cell phone health hazards. At least 66 epidemiological studies show that electromagnetic radiation increases brain tumors in human populations. [“Cell Phone Convenience or 21st Century Plague?” by Dr. Nick Begich and James Roderick earthpulse.com]

A TWO-MINUTE CALL
After only two minutes of cellphone exposure, the blood-brain barrier fails, allowing proteins to enter the brain that can cause nerve damage. “Molecules such as proteins and toxins can pass out of the blood, while the phone is switched on, and enter the brain. We need to bear in mind diseases such as MS and Alzheimer’s are linked to proteins being found in the brain.” So, adds Leif Salford of Lund University in Sweden, is Parkinson’s disease. [Electronics Australia Magazine Feb/00]

STRESS PROTEINS
Cell phone and cell phone tower radiation stress our cells, releasing DNA-damaging free radicals and stress proteins that can migrate through the opened blood-brain barrier and cause degenerative damage in the brain. Dr. Theodore Litovitz, a biophysicist and professor emeritus of physics at Catholic University, explains: “Because stress proteins are involved in the progression of a number of diseases, heavy daily cell-phone usage could lead to great incidence of disorders such as Alzheimer’s and cancer.” [Reuters Apr 23/08; wirelessconsumers.org Dec03/01]

2. Children through teenage years, and pregnant women should be kept away from cell phones and cell phone radiation.

Alarmed British military scientists have discovered that every cell phone transmission disrupts brain functioning responsible for memory and learning. “Overuse” can cause forgetfulness and sudden confusion, as well as loss of the ability to concentrate, calculate and coordinate.

Children and teens who become hooked on cell phones face a lifetime of learning disabilities, hyperactivity, high risk from driving accidents, greatly increased acute and chronic asthma, hearing loss, vision loss, sleep disorders and cancers – as well as loss of social skills, inability to think and reason clearly, loss of contact with their surroundings. [India Tribune Sept 17/04]

More than 2 billion people – including at least 500 million children – are using cell phones.

At least 87% of 11- to 16-year-olds own cell phones. In the USA, one in three teenagers uses a cell phone. RF/MW signals currently under discussion for inflicting on wireless classrooms throughout North America and the overdeveloped world will operate in the 2.4 GHz frequency range – two to three times higher than current cell phones. Plans are already underway to boost classroom radiation levels with “upgraded” technology emitting 5 GHz. [Uncensored (NZ) Nov 9/06; irf.univie.ac.at]

These kids may be difficult to replace, because researchers at University of Szeged in Hungary have discovered that men carrying their cell phones on standby anywhere in their clothing throughout the day produce about a third less sperm than those who do not. Of the remaining sperm, high numbers were found to be swimming erratically – significantly reducing chances of fertilization. [BBC June 27/04]

Put men made infertile by their cell phones together with fashionable beach going women who carry their cellphones in their bikini bottoms and… We could be looking at an inadvertent cell phone cull. Especially if women are culled by bra-makers encouraging them to carry cell phones in their convenient, already cancer-prone cleavage.

The Spanish Neuro Diagnostic Research Institute in Marbella has found that a call lasting just two minutes can alter the natural electrical activity of a child’s brain for up to an hour afterwards. Spanish doctors now fear that disturbed brain activity in children will lead to impaired learning ability, as well as psychiatric and behavioural problems.

Brain scans allowed Dr. Michael Klieeisen’s team to see what is happening to the brains of cell phone users. “We never expected to see this continuing activity in the brain,” he told the European press in new stories blacked out in the U.S.

Dr. Gerald Hyland finds the results “extremely disturbing.” Parents who believe they are enhancing their children’s safety and social standing by sending them back to school with cellphones could be impairing their health and ability to learn, Dr. Hyland warns. “The results show that children’s brains are affected for long periods even after very short-term use. Their brain wave patterns are abnormal and stay like that for a long period. This could affect their mood and ability to learn in the classroom if they have been using a phone during break time, for instance.”

These same altered brain waves “could lead to things like a lack of concentration, memory loss, inability to learn and aggressive behaviour. My advice would be to avoid mobiles.” [Mirror Dec 26/01]

Led by Sir William Stewart, the famous British biochemist and president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science biomedical specialists, the Stewart Inquiry report on “Mobile Phones and Health” was released in April 2000. Sir William said he would not allow his grandchildren to use mobile phones. [Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine Sept /01]

In Sweden cell phones are being marketed to 5-year-olds. Olle Johansson, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm declares: “Parents should take their children away from that technology.” [Dialing Our Cells by William Thomas]

The Australian government’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) described laboratory tests as far back December 1974 showing neurons in the soft skulls of developing fetuses are extremely sensitive to heat during the process of cell division. ”The mother’s pelvic structure promotes deep RF radiation penetration within the developing embryo or fetus,” Dr. Barnett warned. The womb’s saline fluid is also highly conductive to Radio Frequencies and microwaves – and the EMF-conductive human body is 65% water-by-weight. Brain functioning may be impaired for life. [CSIRO June 1994; irf.univie.ac.at/emf; EMFacts Consultancy Mar 26/03]

The age of cell phone users continues to drop as fast as their IQ and attention span. In 2007, the average age of first-time “users” was 10. By next year, International Data Corp forecasts the 9-and-under market will rack up an additional $1.6 billion in revenue for cell phone companies – and add another nine million child zombies in the United States alone.

According to a Eurobarometer survey of children in 29 countries, most had cellphones after age 9. “We’re pretty bullish on increased usage by teenagers,” exudes Adam Guy, a senior analyst at the Strategist Group. “Usage penetration is exploding.”

Four in 10 people, particularly young adults, make cell phone calls to kill time as well as themselves. [London Telegraph Oct 9/07]

Professor Mild, of Orbero University, Sweden is a Government adviser who led the research says children should not be allowed to use mobile phones. He and others want a revision of the emission standard for mobiles and other sources of radiation, which they describe as “inappropriate” and “not safe”. [London Telegraph Oct 9/07]

Dr. Salford says brain neurons that would normally not become senile until people reached their 60’s, are doing so now when people reach their 30’s because of cell phone exposure. [ RFSafe.com Nov26/03]

Cellular One’s slogan – “Wherever you go, there we are” – takes on ominous overtones as uninformed people are buying cellphones worldwide at the rate of 25 thousand a day and succumb to PR campaigns like the one that shows a picture of a crib and bears the legend: “No Member of the Family Should Be Without One…” [Independent Mar 30/08]

BEYOND CANCER
It’s not just cancer that makes cell phones so dangerous. Lloyd’s of London refuses to insure phone manufacturers against the risk of subscribers developing cancer – and early onset Alzheimer’s. [Observer Mar11/99]

“Cumulative DNA damage in nerve cells of the brain can lead to Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, and Parkinson’s diseases.” One type of brain cell can become cancerous from these double-strand DNA breaks at lower than the current Specific Absorption Rate exposure-standard (4 watts/kg).

It is not the total energy associated with the EMF that is critical, but rather pulsed oscillations.
Many repetitions at the higher frequency close to subtle natural rhythms cause non-thermal threshold to be reached in a shorter time. This makes cellular processes “unusually sensitive to non-thermal ELF frequency fields.”

Dr. Henry Lai, a 20-year EMF researcher, and colleague Dr. N.P. Singh confirmed double-strand DNA breaks in test animals exposed for just two hours to pulsed, cell phone microwaves.
When you talk on your mobile phone at 800 MHz and 1,990 MHz, whipping anything back-and-forth 800 or 1,990 million times per second is bound to cause breakage in the double-strand DNA of human cells. [guardian.co.uk]

EM engineer Alasdair Philips of Britain’s Powerwatch looked for people under age 40 using cell phones more than four hours a day, and found them already retired as “unfit for future work” due to early onset dementia. [EMFacts Consultancy Mar 26/03]

3. The risk of contracting cancer from cell phones is about 4% of more than 2 billion users – 80 million people and rising at 25,000 new “users” every day. The risk of premature senility and contracting Alzheimer’s is extreme. Most kids brought up using cell phones will be functionally senile by the time they are 30.

You only need 2000 hours on a cell – OR A CORDLESS – phone to qualify for a 2 to 4x increased likelihood of a brain (glioma) or ear (acoustic neuroma) tumor.

On a New Zealand news show, Dr. George Carlo called marketing strategies aimed at children, “grotesque” after identifying as many as 50,000 new cases of brain and eye cancer attributable to cell phone use being diagnosed every year. (Mobile users who wear metal-frame glasses intensify the exposure to their eyes and heads). Based on current epidemiological studies, that number will reach half a million cell phone cancer cases annually within the next two years. [IsraCast Technology News July 29/05]

After heading a $28 million cell phone study from 1993 through 2001, Dr. Carlos’ finding “that RF causes genetic damage” was not welcomed by his cell phone industry sponsors. Ross Adey worked on similar research funded by Motorola in 1991. After he came to similar conclusions, Motorola was adamant that Adey never mention DNA damage and radiofrequency radiation in the same breath. [WSW July 11/02; wirelessconsumers.org Dec03/01]

DRIVE TIME
Stunned by an additional $4 billion a year in claims for drivers using cell phones, North American insurers discovered that juggling phones while driving is not causing a 600% increase in accidents. Cell phones are much worse than merely dangerous driving distractions. Tests conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy found that using a cellphone severely impairs a driver’s memory and reaction times by disrupting signals to and within the brain. Hands-free mobile phones cause even more crashes because they typically emit 10-times more brainwave interference than handheld units.

Phoning from inside a car or truck is a bad call for everyone in the vehicle – especially children – because the surrounding steel structure amplifies cellphone emissions “by up to 10-fold,” the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee reports.

University of Toronto investigators report that the heightened probability of cracking up your car persists for up to a half-hour after completing a call.

“That’s comparable to the risk of crashing while driving dead drunk,” exclaims Dr. Chris Runball, chairman of the B.C. Medical Association’s emergency medical services committee. Motorists talking on cell phones are actually more impaired than drunk drivers with blood-alcohol levels exceeding 0.08. It doesn’t matter whether the phone is hand-held or hands free. [Human Factors and Ergonomics Society]

If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, her reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver. But not as wise. [AP Feb 2/05; Human Factors Winter/05]

ELECTRICAL FIELDS AND MAGNETIC FIELDS
“The electricity that comes out of every power socket has associated low frequency electromagnetic fields. Various kinds of higher frequency radiowaves are used to transmit information – whether via TV antennas, radio stations or mobile phone base stations.”

“Radio, television, radar and cellular telephone antennas, and microwave ovens are the main sources of RF fields. These fields induce currents within the human body, which if sufficient can produce a range of effects.”

“A magnetic field is only produced once a device is switched on and current flows.”

Magnetic fields penetrate living tissue “easily.”

“Magnetic fields as low as around 2 milligauss or a millionth of a Tesla can produce biological effects. Using a cell phone or a PDA exposes you to magnetic pulses that peak at several tens of microtesla, which is well over the minimum needed to give harmful effects.” [Bioeffects Initiative report]

CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA
“Childhood leukemia is the most frequent childhood malignancy that peaks in the age group of 2 to about 5 years… This peak seems to have been newly evolved in the early quarter of the 20th century and may be due to electrification”… acting as synergistic activators of toxic chemical compounds, I add to the Bioeffects Initiative finding.

MELATONIN, ALZHEIMER’S AND BREAST CANCER
“Melatonin is found in nearly all organisms… it helps prevent both Alzheimer’s disease and breast cancer. Long-term exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF, = 60 Hz) magnetic fields is associated with a decrease in melatonin production.”

“Amyloid beta protein is generally considered the primary neurotoxic agent causally associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Melatonin can inhibit the development of Alzheimer’s disease and, thus, low melatonin may increase the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.

“Low melatonin production is a likely risk factor for breast cancer… 11 of the 13 published epidemiologic residential and occupational studies are considered to provide (positive) evidence that high MF exposure can result in decreased melatonin production. (The two negative studies had important deficiencies that may certainly have biased the results.)”

“Some modulation patterns are more bioactive than others, for example, frequencies are similar to those found in brain wave patterns. Current public safety limits do not take modulation into account and thus are no longer sufficiently protective of public health where chronic exposure to pulsed or pulse-modulated signal is involved, and where sub-populations of more susceptible individuals may be at risk from such exposures.” [Bioeffects Initiative report]

LOW POWER IS VERY DANGEROUS
Cell phone researcher Dr. Peter Franch says unequivocally that brain and other “cells are permanently damaged by cellular phone frequencies.” This cellular damage, Franch notes, is maximized at low power. [guardian.co.uk]

Much like taking repeated blows to the head, rapidly pulsing cell phones signal permanent brain damage. And the high frequency range used in today’s digital cell phones is also very close to the resonant frequency of human DNA, as well as the resonant frequency of the human skull case.

As the Bioeffects Initiative report points out: “Published laboratory studies have provided evidence for more than 40 years on bioeffects at much lower intensities than cited in the various widely publicized guidelines for limits to prevent harmful effects. Many of these reports show EMF-caused changes in processes associated with cell growth control, differentiation and proliferation which are the molecular and cellular basis of cancer.”

“Windows of intensity align across different carrier frequencies.” [Bioeffects Initiative report]

COLTAN
A tiny piece of mineral used in your phone called coltan is causing a frenzied rush for its extraction in strip mines across the Congo – exploiting children, razing pristine forests, wiping out up to 90% of all mountain gorillas, and has already led to the rape of more than 250,000 women as old as 75 and girls as young as three.

Since consumers don’t have any idea where the coltan in their phones comes from, please stop buying them until guidelines guaranteeing the provenance of cell phone and wireless laptop computers come in.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE BIOEFFECTS INITIATIVE REPORT
“The conclusion that, if health effects of commonly encountered RF exposures exist, they must be small, is wrong. The evidence points to a quite substantial hazard. Scientific research has shown that the public is not being protected from potential damage that can be caused by exposure to EMF, both power frequency (ELF) and radio frequency (RF).”

“There is a need for a biological standard to replace the thermal standard and to also protect against cumulative effects across the EM spectrum.”

One main conclusion from the worldwide NATO meetings in 2005: “Worldwide harmonization of standards have to be based on biological responses.”

“DNA damage (strand breaks), a cause of cancer, occurs at levels of ELF and RF that are below the safety limits. Also, there is no protection against cumulative effects stimulated by different parts of the EM spectrum.”

“ELF limits for public exposure should be revised to reflect increased risk of breast cancer at environmental levels possibly as low as 2 milliGauss or 3 mG.”

“There is substantial scientific evidence that some modulated fields (pulsed or repeated signals) are bioactive, which increases the likelihood that they could have health impacts with chronic exposure even at very low exposure levels. Modulation signals may interfere with normal, nonlinear biological processes.”

“Current standards have ignored modulation as a factor in human health impacts, and thus are inadequate in the protection of the public in terms of chronic exposure to some forms of ELFmodulated RF signals… The collective papers on modulation appear to be omitted from consideration.”

IT’S NOT JUST THE CELL PHONES!
What about all these cell phone relay towers springing up everywhere?
Our bodies – and each one of our trillions of cells – are exquisitely sensitive receiving antennas.

There are currently over 210,000 cell towers, providing 81% wireless penetration in America alone, and one would be hard-pressed to find an inhabitable place on Earth that is not within range of cell frequency transmissions. [CTIA The Wireless Association June/07]

The work of researchers like Dr. Henry Lai, Dr. Ross Adey and Dr. Jerry Phillips show that such effects as DNA strand breaks are produced not only by short-term exposure at high intensity, but also by long-term, chronic exposure to low intensities – like that increasingly experienced by growing numbers of people from cell phone towers and microwave communication facilities.
Henry Lai found Radio Frequency Radiation like that from cell phone towers penetrates further into a child’s small, growing skull.

As my friend Chris Anderson points out, “This is continuous exposure, and it is not optional.”

Sydney Australia first city to go wireless say a significant jump in allergies and deaths.

By 2005, more than 500 cell tower disputes around the country ended up in court. But federal law prohibits towns from rejecting a transmission tower on the grounds that it poses health concerns. [New York Times May 1/05]

Now, cell phones small enough to fit inside a cigarette case have decreased reception so base stations must boost their microwave transmissions 15% to 20%. [New York Times Mar 10/03]

Findings by the Associated Bioelectromagnetics Technologists show that RF exposure from cell phones and cell phone relay towers “is wholly correlated with the repeatedly documented increased incidence of autism – now reported by at least some researchers as greater than 1 per 100 newborn.”

A COMING CULL?
Professor Khurana has placed his considerable reputation behind warning: “Unless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive steps, the incidence of malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to rise globally within a decade from now – by which time it may be much too late to medically intervene.” [Independent Mar 30/08]

“Dr. George Carlo predicts surefire disaster, and the complete destruction of the health care system from electromagnetic radiation alone.” Right now, the Bioeffects Initiative report indicates that as many as one in 10 people suffer debilitating effects from electromagnetic sensitivities. EMR expert Chris Anderson predicts, “In the next 5 to 10 years, fully half the developed world’s population could suffer disability from EMR. [Chris Anderson EMR expert – correspondence with the author.)

After carefully reviewing more than 100 clinical studies showing that using “hands free” and regular cell phones for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer, PhD Vini Khurana – who has received 14 awards while publishing more than three dozen scientific papers – predicts that cell phones will kill far more people than either smoking or asbestos. Smoking continues to cull some five million people worldwide every year, while asbestos exposure in England continues to claim as many corpses as road accidents. [Independent Mar 30/08]

In September 2007, the EU’s European Environment Agency (EEA) and the country of Germany both issued warnings to their citizens advising them to avoid the use of WiFi and cell phones until further long term studies are conducted, citing fears that the ubiquitous use of wireless technology has the potential to become the next public health disaster on the level of tobacco smoking, asbestos, and lead in automobile gas. [naturalnews.com]

Dr. Vini Khurana urges everyone to stop using cell phones immediately. [Independent Mar 30/08]

GUARANTEED CELL PHONE PROTECTION
Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, director general of the World Health Organisation, former Norwegian prime minister and licensed physician emphasized: Making shorter calls does not help, [Microwave News Mar-Apr/02; Dagbladet Norge Mar 9/02]

The only way to ensure complete protection against being turned into a zombie by cell phones is to avoid using them except in emergencies when no other voice communication is available – at the max, experts suggest, one or two minutes per month.

SEVEN THINGS YOU CAN DO
1. Do not use a cell phone for longer than one minute twice a month.

2. Do not live within two miles or five kilometers from a cell phone tower. Get the tower removed. Or move.

3. In your home, unplug all electrical appliances when not in use. (Switching TVs and similar devices “off” does not turn them off. Intersecting electrical fields result.)

4. Avoid using wireless routers and portable phones.

5. Keep your bedroom free of electrical appliances, especially near your head while you sleep. Use a battery-operated alarm clock – never a plug-in clock radio! Unplug lamps when not in use.

6. Replace dimmer switches with regular switches to eliminate high-frequency radiation – the “dirty electricity” hidden in your home’s most likely improperly grounded electrical wiring. (Even if done to Code.)

7. Take the best quality daily vitamin and mineral supplements program you can get your hands on.


58 posted on 01/26/2015 10:59:30 PM PST by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
Don’t be silly. There is a high risk:

YOU are the one being silly, Candor7. VERY SILLY.

Dr. Devra Davis is an ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST. . . She makes money off of spreading fear about technology. She ignores the latest science in favor of her pet studies that she cherry picks that support her money making books. She's the Al Gore of anti-Cell Phone hysteria. . . but lacks the evidentiary backing to support her thesis.

The INTERPHONE study (2001 - 2010 — N = 5000 )

The 13-country INTERPHONE study, the largest case-control study done to date, looked at cell phone use among more than 5,000 people who developed brain tumors (gliomas or meningiomas) and a similar group of people without tumors. Overall, the study found no link between brain tumor risk and the frequency of calls, longer call time, or cell phone use for 10 or more years. There was a suggestion of a possible increased risk of glioma, and a smaller suggestion of an increased risk of meningioma, in the 10% of people who used their cell phones the most. But this finding was hard to interpret because some people in the study reported implausibly high cell phone use, as well as other issues. The researchers noted that the shortcomings of the study prevented them from drawing any firm conclusions, and that more research was needed.

Another part of the INTERPHONE study compared more than 1,000 people with acoustic neuromas to more than 2,000 people without tumors, who served as matched controls. As with gliomas and meningiomas, there was no overall link between cell phone use and acoustic neuromas. There was again a suggestion of a possible increased risk in the 10% of people who used their cell phones the most, but this was hard to interpret because some people reported implausibly high cell phone use, as well as other issues.

The Danish cohort study (1980s - 2011 — N = 400,000)

A large, long-term study has been comparing all of the people in Denmark who had a cell phone subscription between 1982 and 1995 (about 400,000 people) to those without a subscription to look for a possible increase in brain tumors. The most recent update of the study followed people through 2007. Cell phone use, even for more than 13 years, was not linked with an increased risk of brain tumors, salivary gland tumors, or cancer overall, nor was there a link with any brain tumor subtypes or with tumors in any location within the brain.

This type of study (following a large group of people going forward in time and not relying on people’s memories about cell phone use) is generally thought to be stronger than a case-control study.

But this study also has some drawbacks. First, it is based only on whether or not people had a cell phone subscription at the time. It didn’t measure how often these people used their phones (if at all), or if people who didn’t have a subscription used someone else’s phone. There are also limits as to how well this study might apply to people using cell phones today. For example, while the cell phones used at the time of the study tended to require more power than modern cell phones, people also probably used the phones quite a bit less than people use their phones today.

The Million Women Study (1993 - 2003 N = 800,000)

A large prospective (forward-looking) study of nearly 800,000 women in the UK examined the risk of developing brain tumors over a 7-year period in relation to self-reported cell phone use at the start of the study. This study found no link between cell phone use and brain tumors overall or several common brain tumor subtypes, but it did find a possible link between long-term cell phone use and acoustic neuromas.

And, as I pointed out, the greatest control group is all the 2.5 BILLION cellular phone users around the world. . . and the fact that there have been no perceptible increase in brain tumors or cancers during the period of cellular phone usage over the period BEFORE cellular phones were introduced. NONE. ZIP. NADA. ZERO INCREASE. That is the best evidence of all.

As several other Freepers have pointed out, the level of energy emitted by cellular phones was and is not sufficient to break electron bonds of ANY molecules that could result in any breakdown into other chemicals that could be mutagenic or carcinogenic. The emissions are not ionizing.

59 posted on 01/26/2015 11:03:12 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
Woggle on all ya want. Cell phones are dangerous, and microwave towers with unsheilded wave guides do not have anything growing on the ground in a radius of about 8 feet. Thanks for the photos of cell towers that have shielded wave guides.Many are not.

I am NOT going to read your idiotic cut and paste. . . especially after your introductory nonsense about 8 feet diameter non-growth ring. I follow science from peer-reviewed journals, not crackpot agenda driven sources. Have a nice life. . .

60 posted on 01/26/2015 11:09:30 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson