Learn About EMFs

by Victoria Moore
4/27/2007

Before knocking on Sarah Dacre’s door, I take the precaution of checking my mobile phone. It’s switched off, as she has requested.

“Last time someone came to visit,” she warns, “I started feeling awfully nauseous. It turned out he had a picture phone with him and had left it switched on. A picture phone!”

She pauses, looking genuinely horrified. Apparently, this type of mobile automatically sends signals to a local base station every nine minutes - “No wonder I felt so sick.”

We sit down in the living-room of the airy, north London house that, for the past two years, has been Sarah’s refuge from modern life. Save for the absence of a television, it looks ordinary enough.

But beneath the coats of magnolia paint, she points out, the walls are lined with a special paper that contains a layer of tin-foil; and upstairs, the windows are hung with a fine, silvery gauze.

These aren’t idiosyncratic decorating decisions, though. All these silvery layers are here for a purpose: to keep the 21st century at bay.

Sarah, 51, is one of a growing band of people who claim to be experiencing extreme - and incapacitating - sensitivity to electrical appliances, as well as to certain frequencies of electromagnetic waves.

“Wi-Fi, or wireless broadband networks, seem to be the worst thing,” she says.

“Closely followed by mobile phones - particularly if they’re being used in an enclosed space - the base stations of cordless telephones and mobile phone masts.

“I have to restrict the amount of time I spend on the computer or watching television, and make sure I don’t have too many household appliances on at once, because that sets me off as well.”

This may sound bizarre, but there is no doubt that Sarah’s symptoms are real.

To date, they include hair loss, sickness, high blood-pressure, digestive and memory problems, severe headaches and dizziness.

They strike with such ferocity that, since diagnosing herself as “electrically sensitive” in May 2005, she has been marooned at home.

She can’t work. When she wants to phone friends, she has to use a land-line - a significant advancement, it turns out, because she was so ill at one stage, she says, that she couldn’t even touch an ordinary receiver without feeling a violent shock pass up her arm.

Food shopping is done as rapidly as possible, once a week, at a time carefully chosen to avoid younger people and their permanently switched-on mobile phones.

And she can venture into built-up areas only if she is swathed in a net-and-hat ensemble made from a special “shielding fabric” that makes her look like a bee-keeper.

“I’m sure people laugh,” she says, “but I don’t mind as long as it keeps me well.”

Finding her own solutions - however outwardly bizarre - has been essential because, for the moment at least, the medical establishment does not even accept that her condition exists.

Fortunately, some individual doctors have been sympathetic to her plight.

Dr Sarah Myhill, who is registered with the General Medical Council and practises privately in Wales, says: “There is no doubt that electrical sensitivity is a real phenomenon - I have seen too many people affected by electro-magnetic radiation (EMR) to think otherwise.

“Clinically, I nearly always see electrical sensitivity in people who are already suffering from chemical sensitivity.

“There are many symptoms that can be switched on by electrical sensitivity, and it appears that almost any electro-magnetic frequency can be the cause.”

Even so, I cannot help feeling a little sceptical. Is there any suggestion that ES could be a psychosomatic illness, I ask Sarah (who, in fairness, does not seem to be particularly highly-strung).

“Inevitably, people suggest that,” she says, with a flick of her auburn, Farrah Fawcett-style hair.

“But at one time, ME sufferers were accused of having psychosomatic symptoms and were ignored as a result. Now, the illness is formally recognised.

“Before this, I’d barely had a day ill in my life - I’ve always been a very energetic, dynamic person.

“I had a career in banking, then in events management, and then I ran my own television production company.

I was always busy and I was always out doing things - skiing, tango lessons, looking after my son, Josh, who’s now 17. I had a very active life and I loved it.

“Now, I have no income because I can’t work and I have no choice but to devote all my energies to fighting to find out more about my allergies.”

The first symptoms started about five years ago. At first, Sarah ignored them, hoping they might be due to tiredness or stress and would simply go away.

Gradually, though, her condition deteriorated. And about two years ago, she says “everything hit at once, like a car crash. As well as the exhaustion and nausea, I even lost the sight in my right eye.”

A stream of doctors, complementary practitioners and Chinese herbalists all failed to alleviate any of her symptoms or come up with a diagnosis.

Instead, she found an answer on Google - through websites such as electrosensitivity.org.uk.

All her symptoms seemed to match those of people who believe they are allergic to modern life.

She lists some of the offending items that were in her home: “I had a burglar alarm emitting microwave radiation, I used a mobile phone constantly, I had two cordless phones and countless appliances - all of which have an electromagnetic field associated with them.”

Convinced that she had almost certainly found the cause of her illness, she ordered, from the internet, some special rolls of foil wallpaper and a fabric called Swiss bobbinet - a netting made from polyester filaments dipped in silver.

Both promised to “shield” her from any emissions from phone masts or wireless broadband systems.

Within a few weeks of the wallpaper going up and the windows being hung with netting, she began to feel better.

So much so that when she suddenly had an offer on her house, which she had been desperate to sell for seven months, she decided not to sell after all.

Since then, she has gradually managed to find other ways to help her cope.

She can use her computer for up to three hours a day, “but only if I keep myself absolutely detoxed all the time, drinking plenty of water and revolving my meals so that I don’t become sensitive to certain types of food as well.”

Her long-term (some would say long-suffering) boyfriend, Rod, a gold and silversmith who lives in Kent, has been sympathetic, she says. But there have been unexpected setbacks that might test the happiest of couples.

Last month, she had a relapse and started to panic.

“I’d been feeling quite bright and energetic; then suddenly, for three nights, I couldn’t sleep,” she says.

“I really felt it was back to how it was in the beginning, when I didn’t know what was wrong with me. I was exhausted, developed bladder problems, felt ill. That’s when I decided to run some tests.”

Using an “electrosmog detector” - the name given to a device that can apparently register levels of electromagnetic activity - she checked her bedroom.

“And there was radiation streaming in through the one wall that I thought I hadn’t needed to protect. We have some new neighbours, and I think they must have installed wireless broadband.”

To ensure a good night’s sleep, Sarah now takes the precaution of swathing herself in her special silver netting.

She is concerned by the increasing spread of wireless networks.

“I think it’s a terrible mistake,” she says. “Is Wi-Fi going to turn out to be the tobacco, asbestos or Thalidomide of the 21st century? It’s looking that way.

“And instead of testing it out properly, what are we doing? We’re putting it into schools, exposing small children to it all day long, and opening up entire Wi-Fi areas - they’ve just created a giant new Wi-Fi zone in the City of London.

“It horrifies me to think of people in small houses or flats who might be affected by several overlapping wireless networks at once.”

Yet the scientific case for electrosensitivity (ES) is threadbare. The World Health Organisation’s position is that “there is no scientific basis to link ES symptoms to EMR exposure.

“Further, ES is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.”

This week, Professor David Coggan, a member of the Health Protection Agency’s advisory group on non-ionising radiation, told BBC’s Newsnight: “There is quite a lot of evidence now accumulated on mobile phones and health - and the balance of evidence overall doesn’t point to problems.

“There’s still uncertainty and there still needs to be further research, but so far we don’t have a concern.

“And on that basis, the concern about Wi-Fi is much lower on the scale than, say, that about pan-global influenza.”

Other research has backed the view of the medical and scientific establishment.

In one “provocation” study, a number of people who claimed to have electrical sensitivity were placed in a room with a mobile phone and not told whether or not it was switched on.

Asked by a researcher how they felt, they failed to establish any link between physical symptoms and the alleged trigger.

Sarah Dacre believes that this is because the tests were carried out in an area with high background electrosmog.

“Once you are sensitised,” she says, “that’s it.

“It’s like having a glass of wine - it’s cumulative in your system.

“You don’t stop being drunk once you have finished drinking, so you can’t then be tested sober.”

She continues to campaign for electrosensitivity to be recognised as a valid medical complaint linked to electromagnetic fields.

“While I’m up and about,” she says a little sadly, “I’m going to do something about it.”

Source: DailyMail.com

by Jim Adams and Emily Johns

1/17/2008

Authorities are investigating the death of a 29-year-old Fridley man shot with a Taser by state troopers, who said he had become “uncooperative” after a rush-hour crash Tuesday evening.

The victim was identified by his father as Mark C. Backlund. Gordon Backlund said his son was on his way to pick up his parents at the airport after they had taken a short trip to Florida.

According to the State Patrol, he was involved in a rush-hour crash on Interstate Hwy. 694 near Silver Lake Road in New Brighton. The State Patrol said troopers shot him with the Taser because he was uncooperative. He was breathing but unconscious when paramedics arrived, according to Allina Medical Transportation spokesman Tim Burke but was pronounced dead at Unity Hospital in Fridley.

Gordon Backlund said he was told his son’s heart stopped. A 1996 graduate of Fridley High School, he had no heart conditions, his father said.

“We’re looking for what really happened,” said Backlund, who said his son’s car was the only one involved in the crash. He described his son as caring and loyal, with a good sense of humor. “And it is just going to take time to figure this out.”

Police have praised the Taser — which sends an electric current — for its ability to bring a quick end to standoffs with violent suspects. But related fatalities after their use have made it controversial.

Troopers put on leave

Lt. Mark Peterson of the State Patrol wouldn’t describe the uncooperative behavior. Five troopers at the scene were placed on routine administrative leave while the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension investigates.

According to Chris Krueger, communications director for the Department of Public Safety, the Anoka County Medical Examiner could complete the autopsy as soon as today.

It is the State Patrol’s first Taser-related death since troopers started carrying the weapons about a year and a half ago, Peterson said.

In Minnesota, 480 law enforcement agencies use Tasers now, compared with 219 in 2004, according to Taser International in Scottsdale, Ariz. In Minneapolis, Taser use is left to an officer’s discretion, according to police spokesman Sgt. Jesse Garcia.

He said it is used most frequently to quickly control a situation when an officer is struggling with someone. Injuries to officers struggling with offenders have decreased considerably since the department started using Tasers in 2001.

“It takes the fight of out them,” Garcia said.

He said no one in Minneapolis has died directly from a Taser. The Hennepin County medical examiner found a Minneapolis man shot with a Taser died from cocaine abuse, heart disease and emphysema in 2003. The next year, another Minneapolis man with heart disease and hypertension died from a heart attack after he was shot with a Taser.

Over 290 deaths nationwide

In the United States, more than 290 people have died since June 2001 after being struck by police Tasers, according to the human rights group Amnesty International. It said in October that only 25 of the 290 were armed, and none had firearms.

The group has called for a moratorium on Taser use until more research is done.

“We believe that they should be used as an alternative to lethal force,” said Dori Dinsmore, the group’s Midwest director, “not as a tool to ensure routine compliance.”

A 2004 study from the group shows many of those who died had underlying health problems such as heart conditions or mental illness or were under the influence of drugs. Many also were subjected to repeated or prolonged shocks.

However, Taser International spokesman Steve Tuttle said of the 290 deaths that “in the vast majority of these tragic cases medical examiners have ruled that the Taser was not the cause of death.” He said Taser use was listed as contributing factor in six cases since 1998.

He said studies cited in trials supported the company, which has not lost any of 61 product liability cases settled so far.

“Medical documentation strongly supports that the Tasers are a safer use of force alternative compared to hands on, punches, chemical sprays, batons and canine bites,” Tuttle said.

A Taser sends a current that interrupts muscle control. The Taser fires two barbs up to 35 feet on a wire. The barbs carry electrical current which disables the person for several seconds. A person hit with both barbs typically topples to the ground.

Backlund is survived by his parents, Gordon and Linda Backlund of Fridley, his sister Melanie Backlund Moe, and his 2-year-old son, Nathaniel.

“We’re in shock,” Gordon Backlund said. “It’s very hard to lose a child.”

Late Wednesday, BCA Superintendent Tim O’Malley said: “This is a traumatic event for a lot of people. Someone has died and in fairness to that person, the troopers, family members and others who may have been affected, we need to make sure that we’re accurate and thorough.”

Source: Startribune.com

by Lucinda Grant

What is electrical sensitivity? Perhaps you are already familiar with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) whereby the patient develops symptoms from exposure to ordinary levels of synthetic chemicals in common use such as perfumes, pesticides, and household cleaning products. Electrical sensitivity (ES), another environmentally triggered illness, produces symptoms in the patient exposed to common levels of electromagnetic fields (EMF) from electrical sources in the environment: power lines, motors, computers, etc. ES patients often are also MCS patients. Other at-risk groups for developing ES seem to be chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) patients and those experiencing mercury toxicity from dental amalgams.1 Because the nervous system is a primary site impacted by both chemicals and electromagnetic fields, those with nervous system damage from toxic exposures seem more susceptible to becoming ES too.2,3 Also, overexposure to EMF can singularly bring on ES, independent of other illness. Historically, ES was known as radiowave illness or microwave sickness.4

A Medline computer search under electromagnetic fields and microwaves will locate several hundred references regarding health effects from these exposures. Electrical sensitivity, now also called electromagnetic hypersensitivity, are both listed on Medline as well.

In a recent ES survey, the five most common symptoms experienced when EMF exposed were skin itch/rash/flushing/burning and/or tingling, confusion/poor concentration and/or memory loss, fatigue/weakness, headache, and chest pain/heart problems.1 Skin problems and memory difficulties tied for first place among the overall symptoms. Less commonly reported symptoms included nausea, panic attacks, insomnia, seizures, ear pain/ringing in the ears, feeling a vibration, paralysis, and dizziness. Some ES patients experience only one symptom when EMF exposed, but often more than one symptom is apparent.

The importance of being aware of electrical sensitivity in the health care setting becomes clear when you realize that a patient may be suffering symptoms from electromagnetic exposures similar to the way a cardiac pacemaker may malfunction when exposed to certain EMF exposures. The typical doctor’s office is a minefield of EMF exposures such as computers, fluorescent lights (particularly energy-efficient lighting), and medical tests that require exposure to electromagnetic or ultrasound sources. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been especially troublesome for some ES.

Because computer monitors can cause EMF reactions in the patient waiting area, the ES patient may check in for their appointment, then let the office know they will wait outside for the nurse to call them in. Also, fluorescent lighting may need to be turned off in the examining room, substituting an incandescent lamp or natural daylight instead. The most electrically sensitive patients have great difficulty even getting to the doctor’s office, as a ride in a car can overexpose them to the motor’s electromagnetic fields. They may ask in advance to meet the doctor outside at the appointment time.

Once a patient realizes that proximity to electrical sources is the triggering event that leads to their symptoms, they find EMF avoidance most helpful for reducing reactions. Unfortunately, with the advent of increasing wireless technology, such as cellular phone service and paging systems, EMF avoidance is becoming very difficult for the ES, creating more suffering and leading to life-threatening consequences for the severely ill. The chemical sensitivity equivalent of this wireless technology might be aerial pesticide sprayings, a life-threatening event for many MCS patients.

In the past, if daily computer use at work caused, for example, a skin rash and headache, a cause and effect relationship could be determined by noticing that these symptoms abated evenings and weekends and intensified at work. It would become clear that the workplace, at least, was responsible for the development of the symptoms. Whether the computer was the source could be checked by using that computer or other computers in other locations to see if symptoms would then reappear. If not, it may be a “sick building” problem in the workplace instead, due to chemical exposures.

For the newly ES, it will now be more difficult to pinpoint the cause of their symptoms if they are also reacting to the ambient EMF exposure from various wireless services. The new digital cellular is particularly troublesome for some ES; the prior analog cellular - a lower frequency - was much less of a problem.

Electrical sensitivity is more well-known in Europe than the United States, due in part to Sweden’s active support group, FEB, which has about 2,000 members. Sweden has been particularly hard hit with ES, primarily related to computer use rather than MCS there. Computer-related skin problems are frequently reported by their group.

In February 1997, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine co-sponsored an international symposium called Bioelectricity which included electrical sensitivity (ES) among the topics presented.5 This gathering was the fourth international conference specifically highlighting ES. Others were sponsored by the European Union (EU) in Graz, Austria (1994), and the support group Danish Association for the Electromagnetically Hypersensitive in Copenhagen, Denmark (1994 and 1995).

Source: Townsendletter.com  

By Todd Lewan

Here’s a vision of the not-so-distant future:

_Microchips with antennas will be embedded in virtually everything you buy, wear, drive and read, allowing retailers and law enforcement to track consumer items — and, by extension, consumers — wherever they go, from a distance.

_A seamless, global network of electronic “sniffers” will scan radio tags in myriad public settings, identifying people and their tastes instantly so that customized ads, “live spam,” may be beamed at them.

_In “Smart Homes,” sensors built into walls, floors and appliances will inventory possessions, record eating habits, monitor medicine cabinets — all the while, silently reporting data to marketers eager for a peek into the occupants’ private lives.

Science fiction?

In truth, much of the radio frequency identification technology that enables objects and people to be tagged and tracked wirelessly already exists — and new and potentially intrusive uses of it are being patented, perfected and deployed.

Some of the world’s largest corporations are vested in the success of RFID technology, which couples highly miniaturized computers with radio antennas to broadcast information about sales and buyers to company databases.

Already, microchips are turning up in some computer printers, car keys and tires, on shampoo bottles and department store clothing tags. They’re also in library books and “contactless” payment cards (such as American Express’ “Blue” and ExxonMobil’s “Speedpass.”)

Companies say the RFID tags improve supply-chain efficiency, cut theft, and guarantee that brand-name products are authentic, not counterfeit. At a store, RFID doorways could scan your purchases automatically as you leave, eliminating tedious checkouts.

At home, convenience is a selling point: RFID-enabled refrigerators could warn about expired milk, generate weekly shopping lists, even send signals to your interactive TV, so that you see “personalized” commercials for foods you have a history of buying. Sniffers in your microwave might read a chip-equipped TV dinner and cook it without instruction.

“We’ve seen so many different uses of the technology,” says Dan Mullen, president of AIM Global, a national association of data collection businesses, including RFID, “and we’re probably still just scratching the surface in terms of places RFID can be used.”

The problem, critics say, is that microchipped products might very well do a whole lot more.

With tags in so many objects, relaying information to databases that can be linked to credit and bank cards, almost no aspect of life may soon be safe from the prying eyes of corporations and governments, says Mark Rasch, former head of the computer-crime unit of the U.S. Justice Department.

By placing sniffers in strategic areas, companies can invisibly “rifle through people’s pockets, purses, suitcases, briefcases, luggage — and possibly their kitchens and bedrooms — anytime of the day or night,” says Rasch, now managing director of technology at FTI Consulting Inc., a Baltimore-based company.

In an RFID world, “You’ve got the possibility of unauthorized people learning stuff about who you are, what you’ve bought, how and where you’ve bought it … It’s like saying, ‘Well, who wants to look through my medicine cabinet?’”

He imagines a time when anyone from police to identity thieves to stalkers might scan locked car trunks, garages or home offices from a distance. “Think of it as a high-tech form of Dumpster diving,” says Rasch, who’s also concerned about data gathered by “spy” appliances in the home.

“It’s going to be used in unintended ways by third parties — not just the government, but private investigators, marketers, lawyers building a case against you …”

Presently, the radio tag most commercialized in America is the so-called “passive” emitter, meaning it has no internal power supply. Only when a reader powers these tags with a squirt of electrons do they broadcast their signal, indiscriminately, within a range of a few inches to 20 feet.

Not as common, but increasing in use, are “active” tags, which have internal batteries and can transmit signals, continuously, as far as low-orbiting satellites. Active tags pay tolls as motorists to zip through tollgates; they also track wildlife, such as sea lions.

Retailers and manufacturers want to use passive tags to replace the bar code, for tracking inventory. These radio tags transmit Electronic Product Codes, number strings that allow trillons of objects to be uniquely identified. Some transmit specifics about the item, such as price, though not the name of the buyer.

However, “once a tagged item is associated with a particular individual, personally identifiable information can be obtained and then aggregated to develop a profile,” the U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded in a 2005 report on RFID.

Federal agencies and law enforcement already buy information about individuals from commercial data brokers, companies that compile computer dossiers on millions of individuals from public records, credit applications and many other sources, then offer summaries for sale. These brokers, unlike credit bureaus, aren’t subject to provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, which gives consumers the right to correct errors and block access to their personal records.

That, and the ever-increasing volume of data collected on consumers, is worrisome, says Mike Hrabik, chief technology officer at Solutionary, a computer-security firm in Bethesda, Md. “Are companies using that information incorrectly, and are they giving it out inappropriately? I’m sure that’s happening. Should we be concerned? Yes.”

Even some industry proponents recognize risks. Elliott Maxwell, a research fellow at Pennsylvania State University who serves as a policy adviser to EPCglobal, the industry’s standard-setting group, says data broadcast by microchips can easily be intercepted, and misused, by high-tech thieves.

As RFID goes mainstream and the range of readers increases, it will be “difficult to know who is gathering what data, who has access to it, what is being done with it, and who should be held responsible for it,” Maxwell wrote in RFID Journal, an industry publication.

The recent growth of the RFID industry has been staggering: From 1955 to 2005, cumulative sales of radio tags totaled 2.4 billion; last year alone, 2.24 billion tags were sold worldwide, and analysts project that by 2017 cumulative sales will top 1 trillion — generating more than $25 billion in annual revenues for the industry.

Heady forecasts like these energize chip proponents, who insist that RFID will result in enormous savings for businesses. Each year, retailers lose $57 billion from administrative failures, supplier fraud and employee theft, according to a recent survey of 820 retailers by Checkpoint Systems, an RFID manufacturer that specializes in store security devices.

Privacy concerns, some RFID supporters say, are overblown. One, Mark Roberti, editor of RFID Journal, says the notion that businesses would conspire to create high-resolution portraits of people is “simply silly.”

Corporations know Americans are sensitive about their privacy, he says, and are careful not to alienate consumers by violating it. Besides, “All companies keep their customer data close to the vest … There’s absolutely no value in sharing it. Zero.”

Industry officials, too, insist that addressing privacy concerns is paramount. As American Express spokeswoman Judy Tenzer says, “Security and privacy are a top priority for American Express in everything we do.”

But industry documents suggest a different line of thinking, privacy experts say.

A 2005 patent application by American Express itself describes how RFID-embedded objects carried by shoppers could emit “identification signals” when queried by electronic “consumer trackers.” The system could identify people, record their movements, and send them video ads that might offer “incentives” or “even the emission of a scent.”

RFID readers could be placed in public venues, including “a common area of a school, shopping center, bus station or other place of public accommodation,” according to the application, which is still pending — and which is not alone.

In 2006, IBM received patent approval for an invention it called, “Identification and tracking of persons using RFID-tagged items.” One stated purpose: To collect information about people that could be “used to monitor the movement of the person through the store or other areas.”

Once somebody enters a store, a sniffer “scans all identifiable RFID tags carried on the person,” and correlates the tag information with sales records to determine the individual’s “exact identity.” A device known as a “person tracking unit” then assigns a tracking number to the shopper “to monitor the movement of the person through the store or other areas.”

But as the patent makes clear, IBM’s invention could work in other public places, “such as shopping malls, airports, train stations, bus stations, elevators, trains, airplanes, restrooms, sports arenas, libraries, theaters, museums, etc.” (RFID could even help “follow a particular crime suspect through public areas.”)

Another patent, obtained in 2003 by NCR Corp., details how camouflaged sensors and cameras would record customers’ wanderings through a store, film their facial expressions at displays, and time — to the second — how long shoppers hold and study items.

Why? Such monitoring “allows one to draw valuable inferences about the behavior of large numbers of shoppers,” the patent states.

Then there’s a 2001 patent application by Procter & Gamble, “Systems and methods for tracking consumers in a store environment.” This one lays out an idea to use heat sensors to track and record “where a consumer is looking, i.e., which way she is facing, whether she is bending over or crouching down to look at a lower shelf.”

The system could space sensors 8 feet apart, in ceilings, floors, shelving and displays, so they could capture signals transmitted every 1.5 seconds by microchipped shopping carts.

The documents “raise the hair on the back of your neck,” says Liz McIntyre, co-author of “Spychips,” a book that is critical of the industry. “The industry has long promised it would never use this technology to track people. But these patent records clearly suggest otherwise.”

Corporations take issue with that, saying that patent filings shouldn’t be used to predict a company’s actions.

“We file thousands of patents every year, which are designed to protect concepts or ideas,” Paul Fox, a spokesman for Procter & Gamble, says. “The reality is that many of those ideas and concepts never see the light of day.”

And what of his company’s 2001 patent application? “I’m not aware of any plans to use that,” Fox says.

Sandy Hughes, P&G’s global privacy executive, adds that Procter & Gamble has no intention of using any technologies — RFID or otherwise — to track individuals. The idea of the 2001 filing, she says, is to monitor how groups of people react to store displays, “not individual consumers.”

NCR and American Express echoed those statements. IBM declined to comment for this story.

“Not every element in a patent filing is necessarily something we would pursue….,” says Tenzer, the American Express spokeswoman. “Under no circumstances would we use this technology without a customer’s permission.”

McIntyre has her doubts.

In the marketing world of today, she says, “data on individual consumers is gold, and the only thing preventing these companies from abusing technologies like RFID to get at that gold is public scrutiny.”

RFID dates to World War II, when Britain put transponders in Allied aircraft to help radar crews distinguish them from German fighters. In the 1970s, the U.S. government tagged trucks entering and leaving secure facilities such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and a decade later, they were used to track livestock and railroad cars.

In 2003, the U.S. Department of Defense and Wal-Mart gave RFID a mammoth push, mandating that suppliers radio tag all crates and cartons. To that point, the cost of tags had simply been too high to make tagging pallets — let alone individual items — viable. In 1999, passive tags cost nearly $2 apiece.

Since then, rising demand and production of microchips — along with technological advances — have driven tag prices down to a range of 7 to 15 cents. At that price, the technology is “well-suited at a case and pallet level,” says Mullen, of the industry group AIM Global.

John Simley, a spokesman for Wal-Mart, says tracking products in real-time helps ensure product freshness and lowers the chances that items will be out of stock. By reducing loss and waste in the supply chain, RFID “allows us to keep our prices that much lower.”

Katherine Albrecht, founder of CASPIAN, an anti-RFID group, says, “Nobody cares about radio tags on crates and pallets. But if we don’t keep RFID off of individual consumer items, our stores will one day turn into retail ‘zoos’ where the customer is always on exhibit.”

So, how long will it be before you find an RFID tag in your underwear? The industry isn’t saying, but some analysts speculate that within a decade tag costs may dip below a penny, the threshold at which nearly everything could be chipped.

To businesses slammed by counterfeiters — pharmaceuticals, for one — that’s not a bad thing. Sales of fake drugs cost drug makers an estimated $46 billion a year. In 2004, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommended that RFID be incorporated throughout the supply chain as a way of making sure consumers get authentic drugs.

In the United States, Pfizer has already begun chipping all 30- and 100-count bottles of Viagra, one of the most counterfeited drugs.

Chips could be embedded in other controlled or potentially dangerous items such as firearms and explosives, to make them easier to track. This was mentioned in IBM’s patent documents.

Still, the idea that tiny radio chips might be in their socks and shoes doesn’t sit well with Americans. At least, that’s what Fleishman-Hillard Inc., a public-relations firm in St. Louis, found in 2001 when it surveyed 317 consumers for the industry.

Seventy-eight percent of those queried reacted negatively to RFID when privacy was raised. “More than half claimed to be extremely or very concerned,” the report said, noting that the term “Big Brother” was “used in 15 separate cases to describe the technology.”

It also found that people bridled at the idea of having “Smart Tags” in their homes. One surveyed person remarked: “Where money is to be made the privacy of the individual will be compromised.”

In 2002, Fleishman-Hillard produced another report for the industry that counseled RFID makers to “convey (the) inevitability of technology,” and to develop a plan to “neutralize the opposition,” by adopting friendlier names for radio tags such as “Bar Code II” and “Green Tag.”

And in a 2003 report, Helen Duce, the industry’s trade group director in Europe, wrote that “the lack of clear benefits to consumers could present a problem in the ‘real world,’” particularly if privacy issues were stirred by “negative press coverage.”

(Though the reports were marked “Confidential,” they were later found archived on an industry trade group’s Web site.)

The Duce report’s recommendations: Tell consumers that RFID is regulated, that RFID is just a new and improved bar code, and that retailers will announce when an item is radio tagged, and deactivate the tags at check-out upon a customer’s request.

Actually, in the United States, RFID is not federally regulated. And while bar codes identify product categories, radio tags carry unique serial numbers that — when purchased with a credit card, frequent shopper card or contactless card — can be linked to specific shoppers.

And, unlike bar codes, RFID tags can be read through almost anything except metal and water, without the holder’s knowledge.

EPCglobal, the industry’s standard-setting body, has issued public policy guidelines that call for retailers to put a thumbnail-sized logo — “EPC,” for Electronic Product Code — on all radio tagged packaging. The group also suggests that merchants notify shoppers that RFID tags can be removed, discarded or disabled.

Critics say the guidelines are voluntary, vague and don’t penalize violators. They want federal and state oversight — something the industry has vigorously opposed — particularly after two RFID manufacturers, Checkpoint Systems and Sensormatic, announced last year that they are marketing tags designed to be embedded in such items as shoes.

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, says, “I don’t think there’s any basis … for consumers to have to think that their clothing is tracking them.”

Source: Yahoo News 

by Don Maisch

The paper “Mobile Phone Use: its time to take precautions”, published in the April 2001 issue of the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine by this author, examined what was known about the possible hazards of mobile phone use up to that date. (1) At first, this subject may not seem relevant to children’s lives until it is realised that today the fastest growing group of mobile phone users are children and young people. This growth is actively encouraged by professional advertising campaigns from the mobile phone industry, extolling how indispensable the phones are to their life styles.

Case History: Walt Disney Co.

An unfortunate example of how youth are deliberately being targeted was investigated by the New York based technical newsletter Microwave News. In the May/June 2002 issue it was reported that in November 2005, just as ABC News was about to air a TV program expressing concern over the use of cell phones by children, the Walt Disney Co. announced that it would no longer allow its cartoon characters to be used to market mobile phones. ABC is a subsidiary of Disney. A Disney spokesperson said at the time that the new policy would remain in effect “until there is reliable evidence establishing the absence of any [health] risks,” and that “The well-being of our customers is our first priority.” (2)

At first this seems like a responsible position by Disney but it was exposed as a sham in the July/August issue of Microwave News:

“Disney and Motorola are teaming up to tap the 6 -to- 12 year-old customer electronics market. They will roll out the first products — a two-way radio and a 2.45 GHz cordless phone — in the fall, with others to follow next year. Motorola states that the walkie-talkies will have a range of up to two miles. And in late July, Disney announced that it is launching a service which will allow customers in Taiwan to download images of Mickey, Donald and Goofy onto their phone screens. In 2005, Disney pledged not to licence its characters for use on cell phones “until there is reliable evidence establishing the absence of any [health] risks.” Disney recently reaffirmed this commitment to Microwave News.”(3)

The only conclusion one can make here is that somehow, while all the scientists doing research on mobile phone health effects cannot yet come up with the goods on health risks, Disney has found “reliable evidence establishing the absence of any [health] risks”. Fortunate news for Disney for now they can proceed with their new telecommunications venture, in partnership with the paragon of truly independent research, MOTOROLA.

This constitutes a serious conflict of interest if Motorola is providing ‘evidence of safety’ while at the same entering into a major capital venture with Disney.

From: www.latitudes.org

by Alan Boyle 7/8/07

Andre Kurs’ credit cards still work. So do the gizmos that he carries around with him. And the last time he checked, his head hasn’t exploded.

That answers some of the questions that have popped up in the wake of this week’s revelations from Kurs and his colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology about a new scheme for transferring electric power without wires. But there are plenty more questions yet to be answered: Is the method now known as “WiTricity” really, truly safe over the long term? Can it compete with other strategies to generate, transmit and store electrical power? How long until I never have to plug in my laptop again?

Right now, none of those questions is easy to answer. Kurs, a physicist at MIT, said the research group has patents pending on the technology and is just beginning to look into how it might be commercialized.

In one sense, the researchers are going where many scientists have gone before: Most famously, Nikola Tesla tried to set up a power-beaming tower a century ago, but was never able to get it up and running. One company, Splashpower, already offers a wireless recharging system, although you have to set your specially equipped gizmos right on a pad to fill them up with juice.

In another sense, the MIT technology - which depends on coupled magnetic resonators to send power more efficiently than can be done through inductance alone - pushes the envelope beyond what Tesla had in mind.

This week’s reports indicated that the WiTricity transmission system had a power efficiency of about 40 percent over a distance of 7.5 feet. Kurs pointed out, however, that the efficiency rose past 50 percent if the distance was reduced to just below 7 feet - and that at closer distances, efficiencies of up to 70 percent were achieved. “That’s competitive with rechargeable batteries,” Kurs said.

The health issue will take a longer time to resolve. “Without a proper study, which includes effects of long-term exposures, it is inappropriate to make claims of safety for this,” Frank Shellock, an expert on the issues surrounding magnetic resonance imaging, told me in an e-mail.

In response, Kurs told me that “the fields involved are much weaker than the fields that are involved in MRI.” He pointed out that the emissions were well within IEEE’s internationally accepted standards.

That’s not to say that Kurs and his colleagues take the health questions lightly.

“We’re not experts in physiology,” Kurs said. “We agree that this is something that needs to be examined carefully. But even if it turns out that 1 mHz or 10 mHz is dangerous for infants, we can still tailor the system to work around that.”

Over the past few days, Kurs has truly had to deal with questions about whether getting too close to the electromagnetic coils would make your head explode, or whether they could erase the data on a credit card’s magnetic strip. He said his head and his credit cards were all safe, even though he was nearly touching the coils during the MIT experiments.

“There were no effects,” Kurs told me. “Nothing funny happened, my hair didn’t stand up. … I had my credit cards. They were in my front pocket, which is a few inches away from the equipment.”

For another perspective, I turned to Kelly Classic, media relations liaison for the Health Physics Society and a medical health physicist at the Mayo Clinic. Here’s her e-mailed response:

“This idea is very interesting and fun. I know that I personally would like to have this available, especially for my laptop.

“I reviewed the materials and also sent them to one of our non-ionizing radiation specialists (his name is Ken Foster, but he preferred that conversations be between you and me) and here are some of our general thoughts (Ken also just wrote a paper on WiFi hazards, and his information sheet on this is on our Web site.)

“First, when we’re talking about health effects, it boils down to how much of the energy is absorbed in our tissue and is it enough to cause damage (by heating or another mechanism). So, most times when we’re talking about radiofrequency radiation (electric and magnetic fields), we talk in terms of a Specific Absorption or Specific Absorption Rate (SA or SAR). It’s a bit like ionizing radiation when we say you can be exposed to X rays, but how much was absorbed? It is the amount that is absorbed that is of interest for biological effects.

“From what we know, It doesn’t appear that human health effects would be an issue from the low-frequency field (10 MHz or 1 MHz) being discussed. These fields do not interact strongly with the human body and, according to their measurements, all of the fields (electric, magnetic, etc.) produced are below international safety limits for that type of field.

“They mention that in one of their experiments there was no interference with other devices (like a cell phone). This might need to be investigated a bit more, especially with respect to use in a medical setting. We’d want to know whether the field could cause an erratic response in some medical devices (i.e. pacemakers, EEG units). More recent reports about cell phones and Wi-Fi in medical settings indicate that they are not an issue in a medical setting, but this is a different frequency and it would be prudent to do some checking before its widespread use.

“The authors have a statement - ‘The experimental setup radiates roughly 5 watts when transmitting 60 watts over a distance of more than seven feet … this is equivalent to the power radiated by a few cell phones’ - that is quite misleading, though we understand they are trying to relate this to a device with which we are familiar. But the application they are discussing, WiTricity, is a ‘near-field’ application, and talking about radiated power is meaningless in this context. These coils are not ‘radiating’ fields to the extent that someone standing at a larger distance is affected, and the number has no connection with the energy transfer. The comparison with cell phones is also misleading. The potential for biological effects is not even thought to be similar when comparing 10 MHz to the 850 or 1950 MHz of cell phones.

“There is also a misleading section when the authors talk about transferring 60 watts into the light bulb. It’s really not clear how much energy was transmitted, but it was enough to power a 60-watt light bulb, and the energy transmitted to do that would not need to be much (essentially meaning that there isn’t that much energy ‘freely roaming’ between the transmitter coil and the receiving coil, which is also reassuring from a health effects standpoint).”

When I ran these remarks past Kurs, he responded thusly by e-mail:

“Concerning the power radiated: Devices containing alternating currents generally radiate, and ours certainly does. As Ms. Classic points out, this radiation occurs in the far field and is not relevant to health issues of humans standing close to the device. We mentioned the power radiated not because of its relation to health, but because it is considered as power lost in our scheme, and due to concerns about pollution of the electromagnetic spectrum. Note also that the 5 watts cited can be considerably reduced, as we point out in the article.

“About the amount of power transferred, we properly calibrated our experiment to make sure that the light-bulb was indeed being fed 60 watts.”

You’d think this week’s news would be heartening to any gadget geek. But our own gadget guru, Gary Krakow, isn’t impressed just yet. In addition to the health issue and the efficiency issue, Krakow brought up a bigger philosophical point - which I’m sure Chris Eldridge and some of our other Cosmic Log regulars would share. Here’s some of what Krakow had to say:

“The future of electricity is that our homes – and cars (Prius, etc.) will generate electricity for our own, personal use. …

“My weekend home is cooled/heated by a heat pump – now 20 years old. I pay something like 40 percent of what a normal ‘all-electric’ house pays for air conditioning and heat. Just kick that idea ‘up a notch’ – put a small windmill (etc.) in your neighborhood for 20 to 30 homes – and you no longer need high-tension power lines.

“Those high-tension lines produce huge magnetic fields. How about the MIT guys standing under those to light their bulbs? They can also see what those fields do to the grass beneath the wires. …”

From: www.cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com

By Todd Lewan 7/23/07

CityWatcher.com, a provider of surveillance equipment, attracted little notice itself — until a year ago, when two of its employees had glass-encapsulated microchips with miniature antennas embedded in their forearms.

The “chipping” of two workers with RFIDs — radio frequency identification tags as long as two grains of rice, as thick as a toothpick — was merely a way of restricting access to vaults that held sensitive data and images for police departments, a layer of security beyond key cards and clearance codes, the company said.

“To protect high-end secure data, you use more sophisticated techniques,” Sean Darks, chief executive of the Cincinnati-based company, said. He compared chip implants to retina scans or fingerprinting. “There’s a reader outside the door; you walk up to the reader, put your arm under it, and it opens the door.”

Innocuous? Maybe.

But the news that Americans had, for the first time, been injected with electronic identifiers to perform their jobs fired up a debate over the proliferation of ever-more-precise tracking technologies and their ability to erode privacy in the digital age.

High-tech helper or Big Brother?
To some, the microchip was a wondrous invention — a high-tech helper that could increase security at nuclear plants and military bases, help authorities identify wandering Alzheimer’s patients, allow consumers to buy their groceries, literally, with the wave of a chipped hand.

To others, the notion of tagging people was Orwellian, a departure from centuries of history and tradition in which people had the right to go and do as they pleased without being tracked, unless they were harming someone else.

Chipping, these critics said, might start with Alzheimer’s patients or Army Rangers, but would eventually be suggested for convicts, then parolees, then sex offenders, then illegal aliens — until one day, a majority of Americans, falling into one category or another, would find themselves electronically tagged.

Thirty years ago, the first electronic tags were fixed to the ears of cattle, to permit ranchers to track a herd’s reproductive and eating habits. In the 1990s, millions of chips were implanted in livestock, fish, pets, even racehorses.

Microchips are now fixed to car windshields as toll-paying devices, on “contactless” payment cards (Chase’s “Blink,” or MasterCard’s “PayPass”). They’re embedded in Michelin tires, library books, passports and, unbeknownst to many consumers, on a host of individual items at Wal-Mart and Best Buy.

But CityWatcher.com employees weren’t appliances or pets: They were people, made scannable.

“It was scary that a government contractor that specialized in putting surveillance cameras on city streets was the first to incorporate this technology in the workplace,” says Liz McIntyre, co-author of “Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID.”

Darks, the CityWatcher.com executive, said his employees volunteered to be chipped. “You would think that we were going around putting chips in people by force,” he told a reporter, “and that’s not the case at all.”

Yet, within days of the company’s announcement, civil libertarians and Christian conservatives joined to excoriate the microchip’s implantation in people.

“Ultimately,” says Katherine Albrecht, a privacy advocate who specializes in consumer education and RFID technology, “the fear is that the government or your employer might someday say, ’Take a chip or starve.”’

Some critics saw the implants as the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy that describes an age of evil in which humans are forced to take the “Mark of the Beast” on their bodies, to buy or sell anything. Others saw it as a big step toward the creation of a Big-Brother society.

‘Surveillance society’
“We’re really on the verge of creating a surveillance society in America, where every movement, every action — some would even claim, our very thoughts — will be tracked, monitored, recorded and correlated,” says Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Program at the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington, D.C.

In design, the tag is simple: A medical-grade glass capsule holds a silicon computer chip, a copper antenna and a “capacitor” that transmits data stored on the chip when prompted by an electromagnetic reader.

Implantations are quick, relatively simple procedures. After a local anesthetic is administered, a large-gauge, hypodermic needle injects the chip under the skin on the back of the arm, midway between the elbow and the shoulder.

John Halamka, an emergency physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston got chipped two years ago, “so that if I was ever in an accident, and arrived unconscious or incoherent at an emergency ward, doctors could identify me and access my medical history quickly.” (A chipped person’s medical profile can be continuously updated, since the information is stored on a database accessed via the Internet.)

‘Marked for life’
But it’s also clear to Halamka that there are consequences to having an implanted identifier. “My friends have commented to me that I’m ’marked’ for life, that I’ve lost my anonymity. And to be honest, I think they’re right.”

Indeed, as microchip proponents and detractors readily agree, Americans’ mistrust of microchips and technologies like RFID runs deep. Many wonder:

Do the current chips have global positioning transceivers that would allow the government to pinpoint a person’s exact location, 24-7? (No; the technology doesn’t yet exist.)

But could a tech-savvy stalker rig scanners to video cameras and film somebody each time they entered or left the house? (Quite easily, though not cheaply. Currently, readers cost $300 and up.)

What’s the average lifespan of a microchip? (About 10-15 years.) What if you get tired of it before then — can it be easily, painlessly removed? (Short answer: No.)

How about thieves? Could they make their own readers, aim them at unsuspecting individuals, and surreptitiously pluck people’s IDs out of their arms? (Yes. There’s even a name for it — “spoofing.”)

The company that makes implantable microchips for humans, VeriChip Corp., of Delray Beach, Fla., concedes that’s a problem — even as it markets its radio tag and its portal scanner as imperatives for high-security buildings, such as nuclear power plants.

“To grab information from radio frequency products with a scanning device is not hard to do,” Scott Silverman, the company’s chief executive, says. However, “the chip itself only contains a unique, 16-digit identification number. The relevant information is stored on a database.”

VeriChip Corp., whose parent company has been selling radio tags for animals for more than a decade, has sold 7,000 microchips worldwide, of which about 2,000 have been implanted in humans.

Tagging the ‘high risk’ patient
The company’s present push: tagging of “high-risk” patients — diabetics and people with heart conditions or Alzheimer’s disease.

In an emergency, hospital staff could wave a reader over a patient’s arm, get an ID number, and then, via the Internet, enter a company database and pull up the person’s identity and medical history.

To doctors, a “starter kit” — complete with 10 hypodermic syringes, 10 VeriChips and a reader — costs $1,400. To patients, a microchip implant means a $200, out-of-pocket expense to their physician. Presently, chip implants aren’t covered by insurance companies, Medicare or Medicaid.

For almost two years, the company has been offering hospitals free scanners, but acceptance has been limited. According to the company, 515 hospitals have pledged to take part in the VeriMed network, yet only 100 have actually been equipped and trained to use the system.

Some wonder why they should abandon noninvasive tags such as MedicAlert, a low-tech bracelet that warns paramedics if patients have serious allergies or a chronic medical condition.
“Having these things under your skin instead of in your back pocket — it’s just not clear to me why it’s worth the inconvenience,” says Westhues.

Silverman responds that an implanted chip is “guaranteed to be with you. It’s not a medical arm bracelet that you can take off if you don’t like the way it looks…”

In fact, microchips can be removed from the body — but it’s not like removing a splinter.
The capsules can migrate around the body or bury themselves deep in the arm. When that happens, a sensor X-ray and monitors are needed to locate the chip, and a plastic surgeon must cut away scar tissue that forms around the chip.

The relative permanence is a big reason why Marc Rotenberg, of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, is suspicious about the motives of the company, which charges $20 a year for customers to keep one its database a record of blood type, allergies, medications, driver’s license data and living-will directives. For $80 a year, it will keep an individual’s full medical history.

From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19904543/page/2/

by Todd Lewan www.washingtonpost.com 9/7/08

When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved implanting microchips in humans, the manufacturer said it would save lives, letting doctors scan the tiny transponders to access patients’ medical records almost instantly. The FDA found “reasonable assurance” the device was safe, and a sub-agency even called it one of 2005’s top “innovative technologies.”

But neither the company nor the regulators publicly mentioned this: A series of veterinary and toxicology studies, dating to the mid-1990s, stated that chip implants had “induced” malignant tumors in some lab mice and rats.

“The transponders were the cause of the tumors,” said Keith Johnson, a retired toxicologic pathologist, explaining in a phone interview the findings of a 1996 study he led at the Dow Chemical Co. in Midland, Mich.

Leading cancer specialists reviewed the research for The Associated Press and, while cautioning that animal test results do not necessarily apply to humans, said the findings troubled them. Some said they would not allow family members to receive implants, and all urged further research before the glass-encased transponders are widely implanted in people.

To date, about 2,000 of the so-called radio frequency identification, or RFID, devices have been implanted in humans worldwide, according to VeriChip Corp. The company, which sees a target market of 45 million Americans for its medical monitoring chips, insists the devices are safe, as does its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, of Delray Beach, Fla.

“We stand by our implantable products which have been approved by the FDA and/or other U.S. regulatory authorities,” Scott Silverman, VeriChip Corp. chairman and chief executive officer, said in a written response to AP questions.

The company was “not aware of any studies that have resulted in malignant tumors in laboratory rats, mice and certainly not dogs or cats,” but he added that millions of domestic pets have been implanted with microchips, without reports of significant problems.

“In fact, for more than 15 years we have used our encapsulated glass transponders with FDA approved anti-migration caps and received no complaints regarding malignant tumors caused by our product.”

The FDA also stands by its approval of the technology.

Did the agency know of the tumor findings before approving the chip implants? The FDA declined repeated AP requests to specify what studies it reviewed.

The FDA is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, at the time of VeriChip’s approval, was headed by Tommy Thompson. Two weeks after the device’s approval took effect on Jan. 10, 2005, Thompson left his Cabinet post, and within five months was a board member of VeriChip Corp. and Applied Digital Solutions. He was compensated in cash and stock options.

Thompson, until recently a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, says he had no personal relationship with the company as the VeriChip was being evaluated, nor did he play any role in FDA’s approval process of the RFID tag.

“I didn’t even know VeriChip before I stepped down from the Department of Health and Human Services,” he said in a telephone interview.

Also making no mention of the findings on animal tumors was a June report by the ethics committee of the American Medical Association, which touted the benefits of implantable RFID devices.

Had committee members reviewed the literature on cancer in chipped animals?

No, said Dr. Steven Stack, an AMA board member with knowledge of the committee’s review.

Was the AMA aware of the studies?

No, he said.

Published in veterinary and toxicology journals between 1996 and 2006, the studies found that lab mice and rats injected with microchips sometimes developed subcutaneous “sarcomas” _ malignant tumors, most of them encasing the implants.

A 1998 study in Ridgefield, Conn., of 177 mice reported cancer incidence to be slightly higher than 10 percent _ a result the researchers described as “surprising.”

A 2006 study in France detected tumors in 4.1 percent of 1,260 microchipped mice. This was one of six studies in which the scientists did not set out to find microchip-induced cancer but noticed the growths incidentally. They were testing compounds on behalf of chemical and pharmaceutical companies; but they ruled out the compounds as the tumors’ cause. Because researchers only noted the most obvious tumors, the French study said, “These incidences may therefore slightly underestimate the true occurrence” of cancer.

In 1997, a study in Germany found cancers in 1 percent of 4,279 chipped mice. The tumors “are clearly due to the implanted microchips,” the authors wrote.

Caveats accompanied the findings. “Blind leaps from the detection of tumors to the prediction of human health risk should be avoided,” one study cautioned. Also, because none of the studies had a control group of animals that did not get chips, the normal rate of tumors cannot be determined and compared to the rate with chips implanted.

Still, after reviewing the research, specialists at some pre-eminent cancer institutions said the findings raised red flags.

“There’s no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members,” said Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Before microchips are implanted on a large scale in humans, he said, testing should be done on larger animals, such as dogs or monkeys. “I mean, these are bad diseases. They are life-threatening. And given the preliminary animal data, it looks to me that there’s definitely cause for concern.”

Dr. George Demetri, director of the Center for Sarcoma and Bone Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, agreed. Even though the tumor incidences were “reasonably small,” in his view, the research underscored “certainly real risks” in RFID implants.

In humans, sarcomas, which strike connective tissues, can range from the highly curable to “tumors that are incredibly aggressive and can kill people in three to six months,” he said.

At the Jackson Laboratory in Maine, a leader in mouse genetics research and the initiation of cancer, Dr. Oded Foreman, a forensic pathologist, also reviewed the studies at the AP’s request.

At first he was skeptical, suggesting that chemicals administered in some of the studies could have caused the cancers and skewed the results. But he took a different view after seeing that control mice, which received no chemicals, also developed the cancers. “That might be a little hint that something real is happening here,” he said. He, too, recommended further study, using mice, dogs or non-human primates.

Dr. Cheryl London, a veterinarian oncologist at Ohio State University, noted: “It’s much easier to cause cancer in mice than it is in people. So it may be that what you’re seeing in mice represents an exaggerated phenomenon of what may occur in people.”

Tens of thousands of dogs have been chipped, she said, and veterinary pathologists haven’t reported outbreaks of related sarcomas in the area of the neck, where canine implants are often done. (Published reports detailing malignant tumors in two chipped dogs turned up in AP’s four-month examination of research on chips and health. In one dog, the researchers said cancer appeared linked to the presence of the embedded chip; in the other, the cancer’s cause was uncertain.)

Nonetheless, London saw a need for a 20-year study of chipped canines “to see if you have a biological effect.” Dr. Chand Khanna, a veterinary oncologist at the National Cancer Institute, also backed such a study, saying current evidence “does suggest some reason to be concerned about tumor formations.”

Meanwhile, the animal study findings should be disclosed to anyone considering a chip implant, the cancer specialists agreed.

To date, however, that hasn’t happened.

The product that VeriChip Corp. won approval for use in humans is an electronic capsule the size of two grains of rice. Generally, it is implanted with a syringe into an anesthetized portion of the upper arm.

When prompted by an electromagnetic scanner, the chip transmits a unique code. With the code, hospital staff can go on the Internet and access a patient’s medical profile that is maintained in a database by VeriChip Corp. for an annual fee.

VeriChip Corp., whose parent company has been marketing radio tags for animals for more than a decade, sees an initial market of diabetics and people with heart conditions or Alzheimer’s disease, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

The company is spending millions to assemble a national network of hospitals equipped to scan chipped patients.

But in its SEC filings, product labels and press releases, VeriChip Corp. has not mentioned the existence of research linking embedded transponders to tumors in test animals.

When the FDA approved the device, it noted some Verichip risks: The capsules could migrate around the body, making them difficult to extract; they might interfere with defibrillators, or be incompatible with MRI scans, causing burns. While also warning that the chips could cause “adverse tissue reaction,” FDA made no reference to malignant growths in animal studies.

Did the agency review literature on microchip implants and animal cancer?

Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a privacy advocate and RFID expert, asked shortly after VeriChip’s approval what evidence the agency had reviewed. When FDA declined to provide information, she filed a Freedom of Information Act request. More than a year later, she received a letter stating there were no documents matching her request.

“The public relies on the FDA to evaluate all the data and make sure the devices it approves are safe,” she says, “but if they’re not doing that, who’s covering our backs?”

Late last year, Albrecht unearthed at the Harvard medical library three studies noting cancerous tumors in some chipped mice and rats, plus a reference in another study to a chipped dog with a tumor. She forwarded them to the AP, which subsequently found three additional mice studies with similar findings, plus another report of a chipped dog with a tumor.

Asked if it had taken these studies into account, the FDA said VeriChip documents were being kept confidential to protect trade secrets. After AP filed a FOIA request, the FDA made available for a phone interview Anthony Watson, who was in charge of the VeriChip approval process.

“At the time we reviewed this, I don’t remember seeing anything like that,” he said of animal studies linking microchips to cancer. A literature search “didn’t turn up anything that would be of concern.”

In general, Watson said, companies are expected to provide safety-and-effectiveness data during the approval process, “even if it’s adverse information.”

Watson added: “The few articles from the literature that did discuss adverse tissue reactions similar to those in the articles you provided, describe the responses as foreign body reactions that are typical of other implantable devices. The balance of the data provided in the submission supported approval of the device.”

Another implantable device could be a pacemaker, and indeed, tumors have in some cases attached to foreign bodies inside humans. But Dr. Neil Lipman, director of the Research Animal Resource Center at Memorial Sloan-Kettering, said it’s not the same. The microchip isn’t like a pacemaker that’s vital to keeping someone alive, he added, “so at this stage, the payoff doesn’t justify the risks.”

Silverman, VeriChip Corp.’s chief executive, disagreed. “Each month pet microchips reunite over 8,000 dogs and cats with their owners,” he said. “We believe the VeriMed Patient Identification System will provide similar positive benefits for at-risk patients who are unable to communicate for themselves in an emergency.”

And what of former HHS secretary Thompson?

When asked what role, if any, he played in VeriChip’s approval, Thompson replied: “I had nothing to do with it. And if you look back at my record, you will find that there has never been any improprieties whatsoever.”

FDA’s Watson said: “I have no recollection of him being involved in it at all.” VeriChip Corp. declined comment.

Thompson vigorously campaigned for electronic medical records and healthcare technology both as governor of Wisconsin and at HHS. While in President Bush’s Cabinet, he formed a “medical innovation” task force that worked to partner FDA with companies developing medical information technologies.

At a “Medical Innovation Summit” on Oct. 20, 2004, Lester Crawford, the FDA’s acting commissioner, thanked the secretary for getting the agency “deeply involved in the use of new information technology to help prevent medication error.” One notable example he cited: “the implantable chips and scanners of the VeriChip system our agency approved last week.”

After leaving the Cabinet and joining the company board, Thompson received options on 166,667 shares of VeriChip Corp. stock, and options on an additional 100,000 shares of stock from its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, according to SEC records. He also received $40,000 in cash in 2005 and again in 2006, the filings show.

The Project on Government Oversight called Thompson’s actions “unacceptable” even though they did not violate what the independent watchdog group calls weak conflict-of-interest laws.

“A decade ago, people would be embarrassed to cash in on their government connections. But now it’s like the Wild West,” said the group’s executive director, Danielle Brian.

Thompson is a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, a Washington law firm that was paid $1.2 million for legal services it provided the chip maker in 2005 and 2006, according to SEC filings.

He stepped down as a VeriChip Corp. director in March to seek the GOP presidential nomination, and records show that the company gave his campaign $7,400 before he bowed out of the race in August.

In a TV interview while still on the board, Thompson was explaining the benefits and the ease of being chipped when an interviewer interrupted:

“I’m sorry, sir. Did you just say you would get one implanted in your arm?”

“Absolutely,” Thompson replied. “Without a doubt.”

“No concerns at all?”

“No.”

But to date, Thompson has yet to be chipped himself.

A mobile phone company is to remove a mast from a block of flats after seven residents were struck down by cancer.Three have died and another four have battled the disease since two masts were erected on the roof of the five-storey block which has become known locally as the Tower of Doom.

The cancer rate on the top floor - where residents of five of the eight flats have been affected and the three who died all lived - is 20 per cent, ten times the national average.

Residents of Berkeley House in Staple Hill, Bristol, also complain of terrible headaches and other ailments which they blame on radiation from the masts.

Orange has agreed to remove its mast after a five-year campaign by residents and pressure from the local authority. But it has caused anger with plans to move it to a residential street nearby.

The other mast belongs to Vodafone, which has no plans to move it.

The most recent death was that of John Llewellin, 63, who lost his battle against bowel cancer two weeks ago.

Anger: The mast (circled) on the block known to locals as the Tower of Doom

Two years ago, Barbara Wood died in her 70s from breast cancer. Two years earlier Joyce Davies died, also from breast cancer.

Danger zone: Residents at this Bristol flat have suffered illness and death

The other victims on the top floor are Hazel Frape, 63, who has had breast cancer, and 89-year-old Phyllis Smith who moved out after she contracted the same disease.

On the fourth floor Bernice Mitchell, 69, has battled womb cancer. On the second floor, 78-year-old Barbara Watts, who has lived in the block for 31 years, is in remission from breast cancer.

Many of the 110 residents, including Doreen Sheppard, 74, have complained of headaches and other health problems.

She said: “The masts are bound to be doing something. I get terrible headaches and I’ve started suffering from Meniere’s disease, where I lose my balance. I’m worried about the children on the estate as there are so many of them now.”

Both masts were erected in 1994. South Gloucestershire Council served a notice asking for them to be removed when the ten-year contract expired three years ago.

But because current guidelines say there is no risk from radiation the council does not have a legal right to force their removal.

After a long legal battle Orange has submitted a planning application to put the mast on top of a shopping precinct in a street near homes, a primary school and a public library.

Left alone: Moira Llewellin’s husband died of cancer, one of three flat residents to die

Jeanette McCormack, 69, who has led a campaign against the mast, said a petition against the new location had gathered more than 200 names.

She added: “People of all ages who live and work near the mast will be exposed to the radiation and so there’s a lot of anger about it.”

World Health Organisation guidelines have dismissed the risks of masts despite other evidence which has found they are harmful.

A spokesman for Orange said the company takes health and safety very seriously.

He added that the company was satisfied its mobile phone base stations do not present a health risk.

Vodafone is working on a new longterm lease from South Gloucestershire Council. A spokesman said the company took residents’ concerns “extremely seriously” and would continue to work with them and the council to provide reassurance.

Up, up and away: Orange’s controversial mobile phone mast will be no longer be a blot on the landscape

From: www.ThisisLondon.co.uk 1/17/08

Although the mainstream media does not publicize it, there have been several attempts by official agencies to alert the public of the risk associated with children using mobile phones.

The Stewart Commision recommended to the Mobile Phone Industry that they cease marketing cell phones to kids.

“If there are currently unrecognized adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones, children may be more vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head, and alonger lifetime of exposure. In line with our precautionary approach, we believe that the widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-essential calls should be discouraged. We also recommend that the mobile phone industry should refrain from promoting the use of mobile phones by children.”(1)

Norbert Hankin, a radio wave researcher and environmental scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, communi cated his concern over children using cell phones in a correspondance with Dr. George Carlo.

“I suggest that another area of concern that should not be overlooked due to the potential impact on the quality of life of future adults (currently children) is the possible impact of wireless telecommunications technology and products on the learning ability of children.

“The growing use of wireless comunications by children and by schools, will result in prolonged (possibly several hours a day) , long term exposure (12 or more years of exposure in classrooms connected to computer networks by wireless telecommunications) of developing children to low-intensity pulse modulated radiofrequency (RF) radiation.

“Recent studies…have demonstrated that subtle effects on brain functions can be produced by low intensity pulse modulated radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Some research involving rodents has shown adverse effects on short-term and long-term memeory. The concern is that if such effects may occur in young children, then even slight impairment of learning ability over years of education may negatively affect the quality of life that could be achieved by these individuals, when adults.” (2)

It is clear that wireless communication poses a serious health risk for children and that the public is being purposefully kept in the dark.

Footnotes:

(1) “Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age” by Dr. George Carlo pg 218

(2) Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age” by Dr. George Carlo pg 218-219

© Learn About EMFS 2008