There is a link between radio frequency and tumors

20 views
Skip to first unread message

news....@googlemail.com

unread,
Apr 24, 2013, 11:34:17 PM4/24/13
to

google translation

Gino Levis, an expert in environmental mutagenesis
"There is a link between radio frequency and tumors"

The professor at the University of Padua who, for years, has been fighting on these issues. "The legislation to protect the health degenerated as too permissive." He attacks the researchers of the Institute of Health and the World Health organization: "Too many conflicts of interests." "A Niscemi the permissible limits are very high"
"In Italy, with the progress of knowledge, the legislation of the structures that should protect the health has been gradually degenerating into a permissiveness that is giving rise to concerns appalling". Professor Angelo Gino Levis, professor of environmental mutagenesis at the University of Padua and one of the greatest Italian experts on the health effects of electromagnetic fields, is skeptical about the institutions called upon to express an opinion on the harmfulness of the plant to be built in Niscemi Muos. Yet it is precisely on the basis of the opinion given by the Institute of Health (ISS) and the World Health Organization (WHO), which depend not only on the future of the new installation, but also the largest radio station already exists.
"For years these organizations refuse to recognize what a vast scientific literature has widely shown - he explains - not necessary to have 100% certainty in order to establish the link between the radio and the incidence of some cancers."

Professor Levis, that opinion has ISS and WHO?
"Terrible. I clashed often with the ISS. Several members of the institute were adverse parties in many processes on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on health. WHO then, is experiencing the second major scandal after what he suffered for
tobacco smoke. has come to establish the carcinogenicity of smoking with 20 years behind on what had already been established by an extensive scientific literature. "

This is due to a different opinion on the scientific data?
"No, the figures speak for themselves, but there are superstructures that affect these institutions. Let me give an example: in the department of WHO electromagnetic fields, there is a project of the same name, directed by Michael Repacholi. This scientist had to admit in public hearings, as that the Australian Parliament, but also on other occasions - last in order of time the investigation of the "Report" - to be financed by power companies and mobile phone. therefore could not have picked a worse body to give an opinion on Muos
. Especially if you take into account the numerous conflicts of interest. "

The WHO has not yet given an opinion, however,
"Yes, but just look at the classification of electromagnetic emissions set by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) - which is one of the structures which refer to WHO - to considerable doubt. Radiation at very low frequencies and radio frequencies, such as have been classified - the first in 2001, the second in 2011 - as a possible carcinogen. That is significant enough evidence with the man, but with a lack of data on animals and mechanisms of action. But even here, having made a search on the participants in research groups that led to this classification, I found that about 60 percent of them had huge conflicts of interest. I wrote and published in numerous scientific journals, and have never been challenged.
In 2002, the founder and former director of IARC, the Italian Lorenzo Tomatis, denounced the increase between 10 and 30 per cent of members of the research groups tainted by conflicts of interest. "

How should they be classified electromagnetic waves then?
"In Italy, Peter Comba, one of the best epidemiologists in business, already in 1998 published reports, also certified by the ISS, where these frequencies were classified as probable carcinogens, that is, class 2A, behind only to ionizing radiation, which are
certain carcinogens. Beyond the classifications, however, you should always stick to the principle of precaution, that is, if there are indications, including non-reliable data, of harmful effects on human health, we must opt ​​for zero risk. "

But there are limits established by law, such as that of 6 volts per meter, set for a certain range of frequencies, which fall between the antennas of the base radio Niscemi.
"Yes, but those limits are in themselves already very high, because they have included in the same threshold is the value of caution that the quality objective, namely that which one should aspire to avoid any risk. Among other things, by now very time, especially in the low frequency range, the principle of the primacy of human health over commercial interests was adopted by the Italian judiciary. In practice, even if there are limits set by law, the court must also take into account what signals the expert appointed by him, on the basis of scientific developments that occurred in the meantime. limits for radio frequencies, for example, has set them a decree of 2003, ten years have passed since then and while knowledge is advanced. One can not disregard
. And then there are the radar, which have a heavy effect on the health and tumor incidence, but which are not normed, ie not have exposure thresholds because they have pulsed waves. "

In the base there is also an antenna Nrtf low frequency (46KHz) for which there is provided a legal limit, but only a European opinion that indicates a threshold of 86 V / m
"It's exactly what I said. Limits are crazy, that have nothing to do with the protection of health. There are holes in the legislation and the worst thing is that you end up choosing the highest value. The 86 V / m is the limit for acute effects, that is, those that occur in a short time. The damage from prolonged exposure to lower levels is not even taken into consideration, but nearby there are housing and is paradoxical only take account of that value.
Economic interests in the field make these rules very lax. "

What are the limits for exposure more confident in your opinion?
"The 6 V / m are by no means a precautionary limit. The independent science has long given very different opinions from those followed by legislation. Regional laws enacted in the late nineties and early 2000s, for example, staring at a
precautionary value of 0.5 V / m, which was then removed from the Cabinet Decree of 2003. "

At the official level the link between exposure to electromagnetic waves and cancer incidence has never been enshrined.  "It is not true, as claimed by the ISS and WHO colleagues, who do not know the mechanisms of action. Today we are well aware of at least 6-7 mechanisms that can lead to the development of cancer, both from low and high / high frequencies. When it comes to the health of the people you can not only take into account the 100% certainty, but also of the higher probability. "

What do we know of the effects of antennas installed in Niscemi?
"I do not have sufficient information to give an answer. But I know that primary care physicians in the country have launched a mapping of tumor incidences. Epidemiological data that I've seen have impressed me, but I have no comparison with the data of overall mortality of Sicily or Italy by type of cancer. only way to tell if these impacts are significant or not. Among other things, there must take into account the various factors pollutants, such as near Gela petrochemical, and also the historical data on
mortality. "

The antennas have a beam of Muos very powerful, but very directional, so in the reports we speak of "negligible effect" outside of the bundle "It is true, or at least it should be. But the scientific literature is full of cases of cancers contracted by people who live around the radar and not directly exposed to the beam. A sign that there is always some margin of error. But this can be ascertain the neutral experts that go to make measurements. On this point you have to watch very carefully. "

Iris


Informant: Martin Weatherall

news....@googlemail.com

unread,
Apr 24, 2013, 11:47:52 PM4/24/13
to
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages