PDA

View Full Version : "Smartphones Have DESTROYED a Generation" Tucker Carlson Interviews Dr. Jean Twenge



BMJ
15th September 2017, 02:12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNB-J-3k1zk

The Liberty Hound
Published on Sep 13, 2017
Tucker Carlson has a very important interview with Dr. Jean Twenge about the negative impact of smartphones on society and especially younger generations.

Not only is degradation of society being waged by vaccine induced autism of our children.

It also being induced by abnormal addiction parents and children have for their smart phones, which impairs the child development in their most formative years.

Spellbound
15th September 2017, 02:26
I don't do smart/i-phones and I don't do Facebook (or Twitter). I post on a few different boards (like this one)....and I send the occasional text with my dinosaur cellphone (no data plan). I'm good with that.

Dave - Toronto

Bill Ryan
15th September 2017, 02:39
Very closely related, and recommended:

Nancy Colier on Coast to Coast (25 Jan 2017) discussing our reliance on technology. Many of the social and developmental problems that she highlights overlap directly with this short Tucker Carlson interview.


http://projectavalon.net/Coast_to_Coast_Nancy_Colier_reliance_on_technology _Jan_25_2017_Hour_1.mp3
http://projectavalon.net/Coast_to_Coast_Nancy_Colier_reliance_on_technology _Jan_25_2017_Hour_2.mp3

Tintin
15th September 2017, 07:19
I don't do smart/i-phones and I don't do Facebook (or Twitter). I post on a few different boards (like this one)....and I send the occasional text with my dinosaur cellphone (no data plan). I'm good with that.

Dave - Toronto

Same here Dave, except this is the only board that does it for me at the moment :happythumbsup:

seehas
15th September 2017, 07:50
i think this topic is closely related to the transhumanism agenda, kids that grow up with cell phones are already on the bandwagon.

they created a addiction for this technology and things will get more crazy in next coming years, im talking about enhanced reality and there will be the moment when this technology will be added directly into the human body.

there will be a split of our species, chose spirituality or technology.

Jad
15th September 2017, 08:01
I think we are all already chipped via SIM card wether we have the latest iPhone or a Nokia 3110. They can remotly activate the microphone or any function of any cellphone we currently have. I use a smartphone for 2 apps primarily: Google Maps because it's reliable worldwide and WhatsApp to stay in touch with family and friends.

sandy
15th September 2017, 09:06
No cell period, never mind i /smart phone period, or TV and only a landline phone. Computer is my link to Family, Friends and outside world and sometimes especially the latter is overwhelming.....:blushing:

Tintin
15th September 2017, 10:20
Very closely related, and recommended:

Nancy Collier on Coast to Coast (25 Jan 2017) discussing our reliance on technology. Many of the social and developmental problems that she highlights overlap directly with this short Tucker Carlson interview.


http://projectavalon.net/Coast_to_Coast_Nancy_Colier_reliance_on_technology _Jan_25_2017_Hour_1.mp3
http://projectavalon.net/Coast_to_Coast_Nancy_Colier_reliance_on_technology _Jan_25_2017_Hour_2.mp3


Very interesting, indeed. Screens in strollers?! Holy baloney. Mind you, it is a very difficult juggling act for any parent isn't it; trying to find a balance between exposing them to the tech so that they have some involvement and familiarity with it, and, providing an environment where they are also unplugged from it and allowed to express their own beautiful natures without recourse to tech.

I am reminded of an old Hebrew proverb that we used to use in workshops at a former workplace of mine:

"Do not confine your children to your own learning, for they were born in another time."

This is a favourite of mine as well. The key word here of course is 'confine', and I feel that it is very important to expose and inspire learning and fire young minds by sharing something of your self and your experiences as an individual in a variety of ways not wholly dependent on tech, as it is very likely for those of us of a certain age, that we gained most, if not all of these, outside of the virtual cage. It's very much a case of how and when to use the tech. Not easy for parents at this time, I'm sure (I am not a parent).

Personally, I have made a choice not to use social media or smartphones, and just use an older handset that is not internet enabled. I tend largely to minimise my dependence upon it.

It is also very much a case, also, of what is actually being communicated? Does it have value? That is the filter that should be applied. Stop; think; how will this be received? Rethink; desist - limits damage. Sometimes not communicating anything can be just as valuable.

KiwiElf
15th September 2017, 10:30
Still using my old flip top. If I want to take good pictures, I use a thing called... a camera. :) Worrying thing is tho, is the basic mobile even still available? How long before we're forced to get some kind of basic smartphone (if we need a cellphone), because the older models/technology have become "obsolete"? :shielddeflect:

Bluegreen
15th September 2017, 11:57
Moments after the PTB turn on their particle beam weapons from the moon:

http://i1.wp.com/www.probiznews.xyz/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/cellphone-zombie-01.jpg?resize=750%2C502

"I'm so glad my phone can give me directions to the nearest FEMA camp ..."

Cardillac
15th September 2017, 18:28
a few weeks ago I listened to a short report on SWR3 German radio where they stated it is irresponsible for a parent to give a child under 14 a SmartPhone; in Korea (inventer of SmartPhones) there is an epidemic of near-sightedness amongst Korean children because of their constant obsession with this gadget and because this gadget has become their ENTIRE reality they haven't developed any social skills whatsoever-

be well all-

Larry

Bill Ryan
15th September 2017, 19:54
Very closely related, and recommended:

Nancy Collier on Coast to Coast (25 Jan 2017) discussing our reliance on technology. Many of the social and developmental problems that she highlights overlap directly with this short Tucker Carlson interview.



http://projectavalon.net/Coast_to_Coast_Nancy_Colier_reliance_on_technology _Jan_25_2017_Hour_1.mp3
http://projectavalon.net/Coast_to_Coast_Nancy_Colier_reliance_on_technology _Jan_25_2017_Hour_2.mp3



Screens in strollers?! Holy baloney.

Apparently so... Nancy Colier refers to them in the second hour, at 20:36. (Unbelievable!)

Her website:


http://nancycolier.com

Her book:


The Power of Off: The Mindful Way to Stay Sane in a Virtual World (https://www.amazon.com/Power-Off-Mindful-Virtual-World/dp/1622037952)

Michelle Marie
15th September 2017, 22:15
Still using my old flip top. If I want to take good pictures, I use a thing called... a camera. :) Worrying thing is tho, is the basic mobile even still available? How long before we're forced to get some kind of basic smartphone (if we need a cellphone), because the older models/technology have become "obsolete"? :shielddeflect:

My old tracphone died and getting a new battery was not possible. I bought a new tracphone and something called "smart move" shows up on the screen when booting up. I might just trash it...it was cheap anyway.

Is there any way of disabling the insidious "smart" spyware technology? Does it still work with it off and the battery out?

MM

boolacalaca
15th September 2017, 22:45
Interesting discussion, and probably one that's been repeated through the years.
I wonder -- if smart phones are destroying this generation,
did television destroy my generation - and radio the generation before?

Everyone who won't have a smart phone because you don't want to be sucked into the transhuman overmind,
are you ready to give up your Comcast or DirectTV too?
Programming is programming, whether delivered on a small or large screen.

Seems to me everything that Dr. Jean Twenge said about smartphones equally applies to television, and most probably other devices - even time spent at the computer.
TV socially isolates people and neighbors as people stare at the tube instead of socializing for real -- less face-to-face interaction.
If you stare at the TV or computer all day, what's the chance you will be reading a 300 page book? TV is a totally passive, one-way device.
Only 8% of the population read books anymore and much of that reading is fluff -- that precipitous drop in reading was well on its way before the advent of smartphones.
Plus, physical health is in jeopardy when average TV viewing is 4 1/2 hours a day -- that's 1642 hours a year, or over two months. TWO MONTHS!
Who knows how much time in comparison is spent by people sitting at their computers -- I'd bet it's equal to that or more.
TV and computers promotes a sedentary lifestyle, usually including snacks on junk food resulting in progressive ailments. There's an epidemic of diabetes and coronary problems.
TV exposes people to negative influences and promotes negative behavior -- shows and commercials usually show violence, alcohol, drug use and aberrant sex in a positive light.
Watching intense emotions on TV can affect you mentally. Those horror, violent, and frightful scenes depict physical, verbal, and other forms of abuse that can affect you psychologically.
Many TV programs do not make you think anything. They bombard you with hyper-dramatic content and you passively receive it.
This overtime can affect your analytical and creative thinking abilities.
At least with a smartphone one can actively communicate with another human being in real time
-- can anyone say the same thing during hours spent staring at a TV?

It's an interesting slippery slope -- but I find it disingenuous for one generation to be all upset over new technology
when the old technology is just as bad or worse.
But is anyone willing to recognize this and then not use these things?
If so, then I guess you'll have to consider never using a calculator too -- I've heard the same argument that the technology of a calculator
dumbs us down because we're not figuring out the math problem the old way, in our head.
Many other devices could be brought into the same discussion.

Of course, forum members here posting things to each other have no similarity to what goes on with smartphones....
ah, yeah.

3(C)+me
15th September 2017, 23:32
We don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Using a calculator is not the same as a smartphone. A smart phone wants to get you addicted to it so that you filter your thinking and emotions through the smartphone. It is not like a calculator in that sense. But all forms of electronics can have some risk to it and people can become dependent on TV or sports or even the radio. But with a radio you often engage your imagination, it doesn't monitor you, it doesn't spy on you. It's all a question of degree. Not all electronics are bad and but some are worse then others on the mind and the psyche.
Not all programing is equal.
Electronics are getting more invasive, use more powerful and obvious mind control systems, attempt to change your thinking and behavior and filter what you can and can't see, it is more damaging and it's addictive, is it worse than seating in front of a TV, well, not sure both are programing the person in slightly different ways.
It's all about balance. I have a computer but I can turn it off and go for days without getting back on, if your electronics are running you and if you can't leave your home without your smartphone without having a panic attack or abandonment issues than you got a problem, same with TV.
These things were not created to make you smarter or more independent, they were created to sell you products you don't need, get you hooked and change the way you see the world. And they will also record all of you conversations and store them for what reason?
They want you to continue to be a compliant consumer and believe everything they report to on the news. No thinking necessary.
But I still want electricity, my calculator, my computer but I don't want it to control and run me, I want to use them but not be addicted to them.
Why do they want to spy on your every move, why the Alexia, and the smart TV, why do they think they need to chip everybody on this planet? All I can say that it is probably not because they like us or want to help us. It's a slippery slope.
It' all a question of degree.

Rhah
16th September 2017, 13:50
When I look around me during my breaks at work, all I see is dozens of people sitting together at tables without any form of social interaction whatsoever. Everyone is just staring down at their phones, with the occasional sound of someone watching a video breaking the silence.
Even when you do attempt to start a conversation with the person sitting across from you, most of the time they don't even hear you, or it takes a minute for them to look up from their screen and say "Sorry, what?"

It's just an incredibly sad state of affairs, and hardly anyone even notices it. During these situations I often think and wonder about what these work environments must've looked like in the time of my parents and grandparents. And I imagine the canteens being bustling areas of people talking and laughing. Whereas now they're just dead.

uzn
16th September 2017, 15:08
http://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/s480x480/e35/14488143_1691375837848260_7751123381692399616_n.jp g?ig_cache_key=MTM1MDA5MTU0NTY3OTkxNTQ1Mw%3D%3D.2

Foxie Loxie
16th September 2017, 15:37
Too funny, uzn!! :ROFL: All I can say is that I would not have met a lot of wonderful people or learned more about the Bigger Picture without Avalon! :cheer2:

Hervé
16th September 2017, 19:41
In your face...


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJ3YVYiVAAAT5ZN.jpg:small

Foxie Loxie
16th September 2017, 19:54
Laughed out loud at this one, Herve!! :ROFL::pound:

Daozen
16th September 2017, 22:58
I use an ancient Nokia. I have a smartphone but only use it twice a year. There are definitely dangers to smartphones. Seeing everyone hunched over their smartphones on the Metro is weird. But as uzn, said... were we really all talking to each other 20 years ago? No. On the morning train in the 90s, everyone was buried in a newspaper with their walkman on. At least this generation are actually talking to each other.

However, overuse is still dangerous...

The key is to get the right meetup apps in the hands of young people, and that's something I'm working on.

https://cellphoneforums.net/attachments/samsung/41461-samsung-e2120-samsung-e2120-0.jpg

zen deik
17th September 2017, 02:16
Obsession is obsession is obsession..... Is obsession.... OK I'm stopping

Mari
17th September 2017, 20:27
I don't do smart/i-phones and I don't do Facebook (or Twitter). I post on a few different boards (like this one)....and I send the occasional text with my dinosaur cellphone (no data plan). I'm good with that.

Dave - Toronto

Count me in on that one too - neither do I do 'smart' TVs - freeview is all we have in our house.
And when they come knocking on my door to persuade me to install a 'smart' energy consumption meter, they are in for a response that they wont have factored in with their customer dealings.....aka 'f**k off'!

shaberon
17th September 2017, 21:54
A generation, plus reaching retroactively into the adult world.

Older tech like tv and walkmans, or even newspapers, might compare, slightly, but these things are more like hooking you up to an intravenous life support system. I consider it a form of extinction.

3(C)+me
6th October 2017, 20:12
Read it and weep....


'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

Google, Twitter and Facebook workers who helped make technology so addictive are disconnecting themselves from the internet. Paul Lewis reports on the Silicon Valley refuseniks alarmed by a race for human attention

by Paul Lewis in San Francisco

Justin Rosenstein had tweaked his laptop’s operating system to block Reddit, banned himself from Snapchat, which he compares to heroin, and imposed limits on his use of Facebook. But even that wasn’t enough. In August, the 34-year-old tech executive took a more radical step to restrict his use of social media and other addictive technologies.

Rosenstein purchased a new iPhone and instructed his assistant to set up a parental-control feature to prevent him from downloading any apps.
He was particularly aware of the allure of Facebook “likes”, which he describes as “bright dings of pseudo-pleasure” that can be as hollow as they are seductive. And Rosenstein should know: he was the Facebook engineer who created the “like” button in the first place.

A decade after he stayed up all night coding a prototype of what was then called an “awesome” button, Rosenstein belongs to a small but growing band of Silicon Valley heretics who complain about the rise of the so-called “attention economy”: an internet shaped around the demands of an advertising economy.

These refuseniks are rarely founders or chief executives, who have little incentive to deviate from the mantra that their companies are making the world a better place. Instead, they tend to have worked a rung or two down the corporate ladder: designers, engineers and product managers who, like Rosenstein, several years ago put in place the building blocks of a digital world from which they are now trying to disentangle themselves. “It is very common,” Rosenstein says, “for humans to develop things with the best of intentions and for them to have unintended, negative consequences.”

Rosenstein, who also helped create Gchat during a stint at Google, and now leads a San Francisco-based company that improves office productivity, appears most concerned about the psychological effects on people who, research shows, touch, swipe or tap their phone 2,617 times a day.

There is growing concern that as well as addicting users, technology is contributing toward so-called “continuous partial attention”, severely limiting people’s ability to focus, and possibly lowering IQ. One recent study showed that the mere presence of smartphones damages cognitive capacity – even when the device is turned off. “Everyone is distracted,” Rosenstein says. “All of the time.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia

Michelle Marie
6th October 2017, 23:48
Awareness leads to informed life choices. I've spent over 3 years without Internet service (by choice) in an area with no cell phone reception. I retired my smart phone 3 years ago when the contract expired. I have limited cell phone use on an older model and I don't text.

Now my attention habits are to tune in to my heart through meditation, read good books, and write when inspired (this happens often).

I know people who will not own a cell phone, those who will not watch tv (me, too), and many who point their attention inward.

There are positive human trends that are not in the media, and are more positively powerful than all of the hoopla that gets media attention. People who learn to master their attention and steer away from tech/media seem more peaceful and healthy. That's just my personal observation.

Oh, and they are definitely more independent thinkers.

Pertinent information regarding theses issues has helped me to make better choices and confirmed choices I have made by the information shared on this forum. Very valuable!

Thanks everyone,
MM

Mandala
7th October 2017, 00:32
I'm a teacher and it is impossible to keep them off their phones. These kids can not be away from their phones for 5 minutes without becoming anxious. They can no longer carry on a face to face conversation, read body language and pick up on non verbal cues. and social interaction skills are on the decline. I have noticed that kids that have a super attachment to their phones want everything fast, quick, immediately if not sooner. They are less independent and are constantly seeking peer approval or peer feedback within a few seconds. The drama, bullying and gossip now have a quicker venue and spread much faster and can be posted on social media forever.

We were discussing communication, and one student told me her family and grandparents went to a restaurant for her birthday and for the first 30 minutes every person was texting on their cell phone, even the grandparents. Finally, the girl said is anyone going to talk to me? It's my birthday.

Today a person in Miami ran over a child on a bicycle and drug him for a distance and didn't notice what had happened because she was on a cell phone. Another driver had to make her pull over.

Foxie Loxie
7th October 2017, 20:20
Being of the Older Generation I lament there seems to be no truly "human contact" in this day & age. I guess distraction is the name of the game now. If we are distracted....we won't pay attention to what is REALLY going on that is controlling our lives. :bigsmile:

Bill Ryan
22nd January 2018, 00:35
HIGHLY recommended. (Trust me. :) )

LOOK UP


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dLU6fk9QY

Michelle Marie
22nd January 2018, 03:24
HIGHLY recommended. (Trust me. :) )

LOOK UP


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dLU6fk9QY

Wow! That is awesome. Should go viral.

I went back up in the woods today where I lived without Internet for 3.5 years. I asked the young couple (new friends) if they were going to get internet. They said, "No, we're good. We might get a landline." There is no cell service there, either. They just use their phones when they go to work. Not much at work, I'm sure, because they're working. Refreshing.

I got to cuddle my former cat, Miso, that stayed there and went for a walk with him.

I'm hoping the lack of personal contact described in this video was a lesson learned and we can move past it. It's a personal choice.

Very nice. I'll share it in email.

MM

Praxis
22nd January 2018, 05:49
HIGHLY recommended. (Trust me. :) )

LOOK UP


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dLU6fk9QY

Did some one say land of confusion QHmH1xQ2Pf4

Bill Ryan
22nd January 2018, 12:48
HIGHLY recommended. (Trust me. :) )

LOOK UP


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dLU6fk9QY

Wow! That is awesome. Should go viral.



It already has.... over 500 million views worldwide (deservedly so, too).

I loved this photo from Gary Turk's website (http://garyturk.com/about).

http://www.powerofvideo.co.uk/admin/resources/gary-turk1-1.jpg

peterpam
22nd January 2018, 14:02
HIGHLY recommended. (Trust me. :) )

LOOK UP


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dLU6fk9QY


This is a great video, with lots of truth. It's interesting that I went to the youtube as I was curious as to how many views it had received. It seems this guy makes quite a few videos and has a very large "following" so I guess he doesn't practice what he preaches. He is obviously spending a lot of time in front of one screen or another.

Valerie Villars
22nd January 2018, 14:21
What's really interesting about that phrase "Look Up" is something which has stuck with me for many years. Astounding in its simplicity.

There was an intelligence study done on dogs. One of the greatest signs of intelligence was in those who looked up; above their normal horizon of vision. Into the sky. It struck me this must also be true for humans and any other animal. It's called expanding your horizons=Bigger perception=Real Intelligence.

Valerie Villars
22nd January 2018, 14:49
The other thing the "Look Up" video reminded me of was not talking on the subway.

I went to New York City for the first time in 2012. I had never been on a subway before and we were riding back to our hotel, coming back from a Who concert. I was so excited, just bubbling with the high of the music. I commented to my friend that no one was talking on the subway. He said no one ever talks on the subway.

I said, "Why not? That's stupid." And I proceeded to talk to a couple by us about how wonderful the concert was. Initially they looked astounded and then they sort of smiled and laughed while I said whatever I said. I'm sure it was not some philosophical discourse. But, we connected.

peterpam
22nd January 2018, 18:35
HIGHLY recommended. (Trust me. :) )

LOOK UP


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dLU6fk9QY

Wow! That is awesome. Should go viral.



It already has.... over 500 million views worldwide (deservedly so, too).

I loved this photo from Gary Turk's website (http://garyturk.com/about).

http://www.powerofvideo.co.uk/admin/resources/gary-turk1-1.jpg


I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. I find this picture to be the pretentious, and delusional.

This guy made a poetic observation, one that anyone with an ounce of common sense knows to be true, whether they will "look up" of not. Now, he is creating a persona to go with it. Please don't envision him using a dreaded screen to write, think of him outside at a table using an old school typewriter with a rock to hold his paper down. It kind of reminds of a music video where they have the rock star out in a field all alone, contemplating the beauty of a flower.

I don't see this guy as any different than anyone else trying to make a buck selling a persona. He does have writing skills and he is honest in his observations but he is exploiting that so that he can make a profit off of it. I think it is the nature of the kind of personality that he is trying to portray that really bothers me. Don't forget, if you want to contact him you can do so at his facebook, twitter or instagram accounts.

Michelle Marie
22nd January 2018, 19:07
HIGHLY recommended. (Trust me. :) )

LOOK UP


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dLU6fk9QY

Wow! That is awesome. Should go viral.



It already has.... over 500 million views worldwide (deservedly so, too).

I loved this photo from Gary Turk's website (http://garyturk.com/about).

http://www.powerofvideo.co.uk/admin/resources/gary-turk1-1.jpg

Hilarious! While he was getting rich and famous telling people to put their smart phones down, I was living in the forest cell-free connecting with nature and people.

I'm not rich OR famous, but living the truth of the message has awesome benefits!

I don't mind that I'm behind...that I never heard of this guy or his video.

But it did go viral for a reason. It's a truth that hits home.:heart:

Happy in La La Land! :clapping: :happy dog: :flower:
MM

Ewan
22nd January 2018, 20:35
Brilliant! Told my son and wife to watch and am very tempted to hand out notices at school to all the parents standing there looking at their phones. So difficult to make eye-contact these days.

apokalypse
23rd January 2018, 02:46
I use an ancient Nokia. I have a smartphone but only use it twice a year.

seeing alot of people still using ancient phone and should stick to it...i only time require is traveling on holidays somewhere look for restaurant but ask local is better idea. regarding maps going back ancient ways having paper physical maps.

My little cousin so addicted to smart phone and tablet for games...they must have it and parents seems like unable to control them.

Daozen
24th January 2018, 17:52
Recently I have seen a LOT of young people walking and texting at the same time. I saw at least two collisions in a week.

Bill Ryan
24th January 2018, 19:31
Posted by Alexandra Bruce last week:


https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/stare-into-the-lights-my-pretties

Stare into the Lights My Pretties

We live in a world of screens. The average adult spends the majority of their waking hours in front of some sort of screen or device. We’re enthralled, we’re addicted to these machines. How did we get here? Who benefits? What are the cumulative impacts on people, society and the environment? What may come next if this culture is left unchecked, to its end trajectory, and is that what we want?

Stare into the Lights My Pretties investigates these questions with an urge to return to the real physical world, to form a critical view of technological escalation driven by rapacious and pervasive corporate interest.

Covering themes of addiction, privacy, surveillance, information manipulation, behavior modification and social control, the film lays the foundations as to why we may feel like we’re sleeprunning into some dystopian nightmare with the machines at the helm. Because we are, if we don’t seriously avert our eyes to stop this culture from destroying what is left of the real world.

This film was made with no budget, is not-for-profit and is released to the world for free for the purposes of critical discourse, education, and for cultivating radical social and political change.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5qJjNM2Kx0

Bill Ryan
30th January 2018, 04:11
A little more.


http://gizmodo.co.uk/2018/01/study-being-a-teen-sucks-now

Study: Being a Teen Sucks Now

It's quite a mild and cautious article, but here's an extract:

The researchers (http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000403), echoing findings elsewhere, found a steady uptick in self-esteem and happiness among teens throughout the 1990s and 2000s. But they also found that since 2012, teens’ overall psychological well-being has noticeably declined.

In 2012, for instance, the average happiness rating of 10th graders hovered around 2.06; by 2016, it had dropped below 2.00. The decreases were relatively modest and never fell below the ratings seen in the dark days of the early 1990s, but they were also abrupt and larger than any other momentary decrease seen in the preceding years.

The year 2012 also happens to be — not coincidentally, the researchers theorise — the first year that a slim majority of Americans reported owning a smartphone, as did over a third of teens. By 2016, over three-quarters of teens said the same.

“Almost all of the drop in teens’ happiness occurred between 2012 and 2015. That’s a very short time period, which makes it easier to identify possible causes,” lead author Jean Twenge, a professor of psychology at San Diego University, tells me over email. “By far the biggest change in teens’ lives between 2012 and 2015 was the ascendance of the smartphone. It’s difficult to think of anything else that changed that suddenly during that time period that could have impacted teens’ well-being as much.”

Twenge has frequently sounded an alarm over the connection between smartphones and teen unhappiness. Last year, she published her book, iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy — and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood (https://www.amazon.com/iGen-Super-Connected-Rebellious-Happy-Adulthood/dp/1501151983), which discussed the current study’s findings prior to its publication.

Twenge’s team [ … ] consistently found that teens, especially 8th and 10th graders, who spent more time looking at screens were less happy, less satisfied with their lives, and had lower self-esteem. Conversely, the more time teens spent socializing, playing sports, and even doing homework, the generally happier they were.

The team also found evidence that teens became unhappier the year after they started spending more time on screens, which further supports (but doesn’t definitively prove, as they admit) a direct cause-and-effect link, while no strong link was found between economic factors like a lower family income and poorer well-being.

“It would be great if more randomised experiments addressed this question, but those that exist show that giving up social media benefits well-being,” says Twenge, referencing a 2016 study (http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cyber.2016.0259?journalCode=cyber&) that found volunteers who stopped using Facebook for a week were more satisfied with their lives and had more positive emotions.

Bill Ryan
1st February 2018, 14:17
This might warrant its own thread for discussion (the topic is very slightly different), but I'll post it here first.

Richard Dolan, who these days is FAR more than just a UFO researcher, noted this in the last half hour of his 23 October 2017 radio show (http://kgraradioarchives.com/Shows/richard-dolan-show/2017/RDS102317KGRA%20-%20The%20Richard%20Dolan%20Show%20-%20DeLonge%20on%20Disclosure%20-%20Forgotten%20UFO%20Cases.mp3):
(Go here (http://kgraradioarchives.com/shows/richard-dolan-show/?loc=2017#archive) for all the archives... very highly recommended. He's head and shoulders the most articulate and intelligent commentator, on a WIDE, WIDE range of subjects, in the entire universe of talk radio.)
The importance of going to AIRPLANE MODE for our sanity


http://avalonlibrary.net/The_Richard_Dolan_Show_23_Oct_2017_The_importance_ of_Airplane_Mode_for_our_sanity.mp3

Foxie Loxie
1st February 2018, 14:37
Totally agree! :highfive: Are we not each entitled to our own sovereign space?! I observe that many individuals' lives are controlled by the phone; not the other way around! :crazy: It is the "tool", but we humans are being made into a "tool".....and quite happily at that! :facepalm:

Bill Ryan
20th February 2018, 14:47
I believe (and hope!!) this dreadful article is satirical. :)


http://roughtype.com/?p=1343

Raising the realtime child

Since I began writing the series, I have received innumerable emails and texts from panicked parents worried that they may be failing in what has become the central challenge of modern parenting: ensuring that children grow up to be well adapted to the realtime environment. These parents are concerned – and rightly so – that their kids will be at a disadvantage in the realtime milieu in which we all increasingly live, work, love, and compete for the small bits of attention that, in the aggregate, define the success, or failure, of our days.

If maladapted to realtime existence, these parents understand, their progeny will end up socially ostracized, with few friends and even fewer followers. “Can we even be said to be alive,” one agitated young mother wrote me, “if our status updates go unread?” The answer, of course, is no. In the realtime environment, the absence of interactive stimuli, even for brief periods of “time,” may result in a state of reflective passivity indistinguishable from nonexistence.

On a more practical level, a lack of realtime skills is sure to constrain a young person’s long-term job prospects. At best, he or she will be fated to spend his or her days involved in some form of manual labor, possibly even working out of doors with severely limited access to screens. At worst, he or she will have to find a non-tenure-track position in academia.

Fortunately, raising the realtime child is not difficult. The newborn human infant, after all, leads a purely realtime existence, immersed entirely in the “stream” of realtime alerts and stimuli. As long as the child is kept in the crosscurrents of the messaging stream from the moment of parturition – the biological womb replaced immediately with the wi-fi and/or 3G womb – adaptation to the realtime environment will likely be seamless and complete.

It is only when a sense that time may consist of something other than the immediate moment is allowed to impinge on the child’s consciousness that maladaption to realtime becomes a possibility. Hence, the most pressing job for the parent is to ensure that the realtime child is kept in a device-rich networked environment at all times.

https://i1.wp.com/www.roughtype.com/images/realtimekids.jpg?resize=414%2C311

It is also essential that the realtime child never be allowed to run a cognitive surplus. His or her mental accounts must always be kept in perfect balance, with each synaptical firing being immediately deployed for a well-defined chore, preferably involving the manipulation of symbols on a computer screen in a collaborative social-production exercise. If cognitive cycles are allowed to go to waste, the child may drift into an introspective “dream state” outside the flow of the realtime stream.

It is wise to ensure that your iPhone is well-populated with apps suitable for children, as this will provide a useful backup should your child break, lose, or otherwise be separated from his or her own network-enabled devices. Printed books should in general be avoided, as they also tend to promote an introspective dream state, though multifunctional devices that include e-reading apps, such as Apple’s forthcoming iPad, are permissible.

The out-of-doors poses particular problems for the realtime child, as nature has in the past earned a reputation for inspiring states of introspectiveness and even contemplativeness in impressionable young people. (Some psychologists even suggest that looking out a window may be dangerous to the mental health of the realtime child.) Sometimes it is simply impractical to keep a child from interacting with the natural world.

At these moments, it is all the more important that a child be outfitted with portable electronic devices, including music players, smartphones, and gaming instruments, in order to ensure no break in the digital stream. If you are not able to physically accompany your child on expeditions into the natural world, it is a good idea to send text messages to your child every few minutes just to be on the safe side. The establishment of Twitter accounts for children is also highly recommended.

https://i1.wp.com/www.roughtype.com/images/bloggedchild.jpg?resize=460%2C306

The challenges of keeping your child in a realtime environment can be trying, but remember: history is on your side. The realtime environment becomes increasingly ubiquitous with each passing day. It is also important to remember that one of the great joys of modern parenthood is documenting your realtime infant’s or toddler’s special moments through texts, tweets, posts, uploaded photos, and YouTube clips. The realtime child presents ideal messaging-fodder for the realtime parent.

Realtime is a journey that you and your child take together. Every moment is unique because every moment is disconnected from both the one that precedes it and the one that follows it. Realtime is a state of perpetual renewal and unending and undifferentiated stimulus. The joy of infancy continues forever.

aoibhghaire
20th February 2018, 16:52
This 'realtime' approach is a disconnect from real space. This 'realtime' develops a new 'realspace' so to speak, but not real space in natural 3D, their are fundamental aspects of time, their are corresponding properties of space. They are fundamentally inextricably linked, i.e. they can't be separated. However, our personal relationship or perspective changes.

Bill's posted article from the blogger shows a lack of awareness and ignorance as to the range of evidence available.

I've suggested that civilization may collapse in 50 years due to lack of not using natural 3D space or real space.

Civilisation may collapse in 50 years due to lack of not using natural 3D space (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100490-Civilisation-may-collapse-in-50-years-due-to-lack-of-not-using-natural-3D-space)

I’ve carried out some interesting research that I would like to share with Avalonians. The details I am sharing are all referenced below for your perusal.

Background

Technology and availability of close up vision viewing devices results in half the visual field to close down or to be paralyzed. This is damaging the binocular brain cells in children particularly up to at least the age of 7 when binocular cells mature. The eyeball itself is not fully grown until the age of 20.

The rise in technology and availability and use of close up mobile vision devices for very young children is directly mirrored by the rise in mental illness.

Mental illness in children and young people has alarmingly increased over the last 20 years. It now stands at 20 percent of young people. In America there is a thirty-five -fold increase in social security disability insurance for children in the same two decades. If there was the same increase over the next two decades we would see the vast majority of people suffering a disabling mental illness.

Mental illness / dysfunctional behavior

Mental illness manifests itself in many ways e.g. violent crime, suicide, domestic violence, obesity, drug abuse, antisocial behavior and civil unrest in all forms, all of which are directly mirrored by the rise in mental health problems in young people.

Technology and availability of close up vision viewing of laptops, mobile vision devices, etc, could end civilization as we know it in just a few generations.

Importance of Vision

Vision is the most precious sense we possess in biological terms, it functions close to the speed of light and is directly or indirectly linked to all the important areas of the brain. The transparent cornea and lens focus the image on light sensitive cells on the retina. The retina senses and processes the visual image before sending it to the left and right hemispheres to the cerebral cortex.

Vision evolved in three dimensional space but the technology in vision viewing devices is forcing our vision to operate in two dimensional space. For adults whose vision is fully mature it will only affect their vision, but for young children whose binocular vision is not mature, it will also affect the binocular vision cells in their brains from maturing naturally. Any damage to brain cells result in mental illness in some form.

Neglecting our Vision

We pay great attention to the sense of hearing where exposure to loud noise effects the fibers in the cochlea and inner ear brain cells creating a symptom called tinnitus and other mental problems. But we pay no attention to the sense of vision where incredible damage is being done to the brains of our children particularly in the brains of very young children and we totally ignore the statistics which are alarming.

Statistics and Trending

The statistics on a projected basis would suggest that society is becoming ever increasingly dysfunctional. This means that when inserting statistical data on an already dysfunctional society, the future results show the end of civilization in less than 50 years time as we know it.

Discussion

Although this exercise is an interesting correlation, I’m not fixated with the results that this will be the outcome. Their may be other elements at play in the future that may balance this out for civilizations survival. Also I’m not going to speculate as to what new elements may manifest in the future to address this issue.

The importance of this exercise is to be aware of the data and the trending. I also believe that society is becoming more aware and awake to the implications and the effects of technology. Parents will likely put a stop to excessive use of these technologies with very young persons once they understand the implications. Lastly, I believe nature itself will always balance things out as long as we develop our true partnership with it.

References:

Gary Heiting OD: ‘Why Myopia progression is a concern’
http://www.allaboutvision.com/parents/myopia-progression.htm

Eamonn Ansbro, Catherine Overhauser (2012) ‘Health Risks of Artificial Stereopsis’ (reports eye fatigue and poison toxins from viewing 3D displays)
http://www.globalinnovationcommons.org/sites/globalinnovationcommons.org/files/health_risks_of_artificial_stereopsis-1.pdf

Study of 75 kids under age 8 use mobile phones
http://www.fastcompany.com/3020755/fast-feed/study

Prevalence of mental illness
https://www.nami.org/NAMI/media/NAMI-Media/Infographics/GeneralMHFacts.pdf

Mental illness dramatically increased in the US
http://www.alternet.org

Australian Institute of Health (AIHW) ‘Suicide the leading cause of death of 15 to 25 year old young people’
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/life-expectancy-death/premature-mortality-in-australia-1997-2012/contents/deaths-among-young-people-aged-15-24

Business Insider ‘Smart phones, effect vision and mental health www.businessinsider.com (http://www.businessinsider), Kevin Loria, Sept 9, 2014

Reuters (global markets) by Peter Apps, March 20, 2015 ‘World gets more violent’
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/03/20/breaking-a-decades-long-trend-the-world-gets-more-violent

The Guardian, George Arnett, Oct 10, 2015, ‘Which countries does mental health have the most impact’
https://theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/oct/10/in-which-countries-does-mental-health-have-the-most-impact

The Mail, 30 July, 2016; ‘Thousands of victims at risk as cases of domestic violence surge by 35 per cent in one year’
http://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014636/Domestic-abuse-cases-increase-35-year.html

World Health Organisation; Blog Sept 11, 2012; ‘Devastating Impact of Mental Illness World wide, Kate Torgovnick
https://blog.ted.com/some-stats-on-the-devastating-impact-of-mental-illness-worldwide-followed-by-some-reasons-for-hope

Business Insider www.businessinsider.com (http://www.businessinsider) Oct 10, 2014, Jeremy Bender (Maplecroft Civil Unrest Index)

aoibhghaire
20th February 2018, 21:07
There is a trend with adults I keep meeting, indicating they are becoming more concerned about these technologies.
I haven't come across any recent surveys for 2018 or supporting material yet. However, others here may have found some. I would be most interested.

I only noticed that Bill's posted article from the blogger shows this material was from 2010, so I hope I am right about this date there may be changes on the way and hopefully this may bottom out soon for the better. Hopefully this may confirm a positive result from my last paragraph in the discussion section.

3(C)+me
1st April 2018, 18:44
The evidence is slowing comming into view, this can be seen as a good or bad thing depending on your particular perspective.

Can Cellphones Cause Cancer? Experts Surprised By Latest Tests


Follow KDKA-TV: Facebook | Twitter

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) – Can cellphones really cause cancer? It’s been a question that’s dogged researchers for years.

However, a group of experts say the results of some tests are pretty surprising.

Millions of people constantly call, text, click, take pictures and play on cellphones.

Even the top cellular radiation researchers from around the world have a hard time untethering.

But, they gathered recently in North Carolina to talk about cellphone concerns and whether they really do increase the chances of developing cancer.

The panel voted that the results from years of testing on mice and rats were more significant than originally thought.

They say they found clear evidence that phone radiation caused tumors in the hearts of rats, which were similar to tumors in people.

“In humans, it’s seen in the vestibular nerve, in the ear, the acoustic nerve. We found it in the heart, although our animals were exposed in their whole body condition,” John Bucher said.

“While a given animal is not making a cellphone call, they are, throughout their short two-year lifetime getting the same exposure that we expect people to get in their 70-plus years of life,” Dr. Devra Davis, of Environmental Health Trust, said.

Activists are now calling for more protections, citing separate studies from France and Italy.

“Many brain tumor lawsuits going on right now that are waiting for a study like this to prove that people’s brain tumors were caused by their cellphone radiation,” Kevin Mottus, of the California Brain Tumor Association, said.

There are new concerns on the horizon as 5G, which is a stronger broadband system, is about to debut.

Some activists say the government has a responsibility to increase regulations.

“And I think it’s the responsibility of the ones making the phones to make them as safe as possible, and I’m sure they can do better than what we actually have,” Dr. Annie Sasco said.

Both activists and researchers agree that people can minimize any risk by holding phones away from the body when in use and not putting them in your pocket.
Comments (8)

onawah
4th July 2018, 05:00
Blue light exposure from smartphones INCREASE the risk of eye damage
by: Lori Alton July 2, 2018
https://www.naturalhealth365.com/blue-light-vision-loss-2615.html
"According to The Vision Council, almost 90 percent of American adults use digital devices – including notebooks, laptops and smartphones – for two or more hours a day. And the resultant barrage of blue light (coming off these devices) is raising lots of red flags.

Recent studies have sparked concern among natural health experts that blue light from the screens of digital devices could cause optical problems, ranging from eye strain to increased risk of macular degeneration.

Macular degeneration – a disorder affecting the retina that causes blurred vision – currently affects over 1.8 million Americans. Known risk factors include being over age 60, smoking cigarettes, and having heart disease and diabetes.

Could gazing at smartphones and computer screens trigger macular degeneration as well? (the answer may surprise you)

What is blue light and what is the problem?
Sunlight contains red, orange, yellow, green and blue light rays, which combine to form “white” light. White light contains both visible and invisible rays.

At one end of the light spectrum are red rays, with longer wavelengths and less energy. Blue rays, at the other end of the spectrum, have shorter wavelengths and higher amounts of energy. About one-third of all visible light is blue light, classified as “high-energy visible” (HEV) light.

Beyond the red end of the visible light spectrum are infrared rays, which can’t be seen. (However, infrared lamps, such as those found in restaurants and some saunas, also emit visible red light as a visual indication that infrared light – and heat – is being produced).

Like infrared rays, ultraviolet light – at the other end of the spectrum – can’t be seen. But the effects can be very visible. Too much ultraviolet light can cause sunburn, and even skin cancer. It can also cause “sunburned” eyes – a condition known as photokerasis, or “snow blindness.”

Scientists already know that ultraviolet radiation is linked with cataracts – and possibly with macular degeneration. Unfortunately, we can’t always predict the effect of excessive blue light exposure – until it’s too late.

Warning: Excessive blue light radiation can harm the retina
Blue light exists not only in sunlight, but in man-made sources as well – including fluorescent and LED lights, flat screen TVs, computers, electronic notebooks, smartphones and other digital devices.

According to Dr. Gary Heiting, an expert on preventive vision care, studies have shown that too much exposure to blue light damages cells in the retina – causing changes that resemble those found in macular degeneration.

So it’s not surprising that scientists are concerned that blue light from computer screens could raise the risk of macular degeneration later in life.

Although computer screens emit far less blue light than the amounts generated by the sun, doctors are concerned because of the proximity of the screens to people’s faces – and the sheer amount of time spent looking at them.

Blue light provides some benefits, including regulating circadian rhythms
Here’s where things get a little complicated.

Blue light is not unreservedly bad, and it’s not a good idea to block all blue light all of the time. A certain amount of blue light – which can increase alertness, improve memory, sharpen cognition and even lift mood – is essential for good health.

In fact, the light therapy used to treat seasonal affective disorder utilizes bright white light that contains high-energy visible blue light. Blue light also helps to regulate circadian rhythms, which govern the body’s natural sleep and wakefulness cycles.

While exposure to blue light in daytime can support healthy sleep patterns, seeing blue light in the hours before bedtime can suppress production of melatonin, the “sleep” hormone.

In other words, a habit of scrolling through your smartphone or reading on a laptop at bedtime is not conducive to restful sleep – to say the least.

Melatonin is not only a sleep-promoting hormone, but an important cancer-fighting antioxidant.

In fact, some experts believe that the use of electric lighting in developed countries – which disrupts the body’s optimal melatonin production schedule – is associated with the significantly higher rates of breast and other cancers in these areas.

Filter blue light with screen protectors and special eyeglasses
Dr. Heiting advises using specialized screen protectors – and notes that these can prevent substantial amounts of blue light from reaching your eyes, without affecting visibility.

LowBlueLights, a company founded by a trio of lighting research and development specialists, offers a range of products to filter blue light. A variety of companies, including Eyesafe, iLLumiShield, RetinaShield, Retina Armor, and Cyxus, also offer filtering options.

Editor’s note: We are NOT compensated in any way for the products recommended in this article.

You can also protect your eyes and reduce exposure to blue light with the use of specialized blue light-filtering eyeglasses, available without prescription. Technology companies are getting on board, too.

Apple recently released a light filter for iPhones and iPads that automatically activates blue light filtering at night.

Proper nutrition can help preserve eyesight naturally
You can help protect your eyes from macular degeneration with a diet high in antioxidant carotenoids – particularly orange or yellow vegetables like carrots and squash.

Darkly colored fruits and berries – such as cherries, blackberries, blueberries and bilberries – are rich in beneficial plant pigments known as anthocyanins, while green leafy vegetables are high in lutein and zeaxanthin, a pair of powerful antioxidants endorsed by The American Optometric Association as effective in reducing the risk of chronic eye diseases.

Tip: you can reduce eyestrain by following the “20/20/20” rule. For every 20 minutes of using a digital device – or watching a flat-screen TV – look away for 20 seconds while focusing on something 20 feet away.

Of course, any unusual visual disturbance calls for a visit to a qualified eye doctor.

(In addition to blurred central vision, symptoms of macular degeneration can include blurry patches in your field of vision, colors appearing faded or less vivid, and straight lines appearing as “wavy.”)

Along with cataracts, macular degeneration is a leading cause of vision loss and acquired blindness in the United States. It only makes sense to “play it safe” and err on the side of caution – by reducing excessive exposure to blue light."

Sources for this article include:

Harvard.edu
AllAboutVision.com
LowBlueLights.com
LowBlueLights.com

Zak247
5th July 2018, 01:27
It’s really sad to see the human race with their heads always in a Smartphone. I understand it.

Strangely, I’m an IT technologist and don’t have a smartphone! I use a company old-time flip phone presently, and when I pull it out people look at me like I’m crazy.

Of course, I’ll get one soon, since I’m leaving work and will probably need one, but Ill rarely, I hope, use it.
I’ve got the usual computers, tablets but phones, no.

All of these devices are only profane symbols on a lower level of what the advanced human had in primordial times and could do with their minds, soul, and spirit.

I believe these replicas of human transcendence will not work; one can never duplicate the awesome original attributes of the God-human.

Indeed, these devices are stimulant machines.

What we should be doing is trying to contact the smartphone of the mind, the iPad of the soul and the PC/TV of the spirit which are eternal and won’t end up on the trash heap like all these flimsy technical devises.

Valerie Villars
5th July 2018, 12:54
Really great post Zak.

pyrangello
5th July 2018, 14:32
That's not all the cell phones are destroying, the human race is now the largest hamster experimentation on the planet , Not only can you cook popcorn with your phone, you can also scramble eggs too. One of my buddies has his phone in his front pant pocket all the time and the other day he was telling me that area of his leg is going numb. I said to stop carrying it on your body . Years from now we will be seeing the effects of this in all forms and fashions, social communication, to health issues. Its a blessing and a curse with these mini computers.

Pop corn with cell phones

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V94shlqPlSI

my mobile phone cooked my egg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3ge9M54l7E

BMJ
20th September 2018, 03:05
PJW talks about tech giants limiting their children's access to tech. Because they know it causes addiction which can lead to depression, anxiety and even suicide.

9m-nmKNKD1U

Paul Joseph Watson
Published on Sep 18, 2018
Why do tech elites keep their own kids away from smartphones?

CLIPS USED...

People Are Merging with Their Smartphones - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTduy...

Introducing Actual Reality - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0AlN...

Cell phone addiction - Short Movie - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qugoo...

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/PaulJosephWa...
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

Bill Ryan
24th September 2018, 14:04
An interesting and important new book, now in the Avalon Library:


Jaron Lanier - Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now
http://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Jaron%20Lanier%20-%20Ten%20Arguments%20For%20Deleting%20Your%20Socia l%20Media%20Accounts%20Right%20Now.pdf

Here's a review:


https://theguardian.com/books/2018/may/30/ten-arguments-deleting-your-social-media-accounts-right-now-jaron-lanier

Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now by Jaron Lanier – review
30 May, 2018

Lanier was there for the creation of the internet and is convinced that social media is toxic, making us sadder, angrier and more isolated

Many of the ideas in Jaron Lanier’s new book start off pretty familiar – at least, if you are active on social media. Yet in every chapter there is a principle so elegant, so neat, sometimes even so beautiful, that what is billed as straight polemic becomes something much more profound.

The concept of random reinforcement, for example: addiction fed not by reward but by never knowing whether or when the reward will come, is well known. But Lanier puts it like this: “The algorithm is trying to capture the perfect parameters for manipulating a brain, while the brain, in order to seek out deeper meaning, is changing in response to the algorithm’s experiments … Because the stimuli from the algorithm doesn’t mean anything, because they genuinely are random, the brain isn’t responding to anything real, but to a fiction. That process – of becoming hooked on an elusive mirage – is addiction.”

The restless scrolling, the clammy self-reproach afterwards … we could recognise that as addiction quite easily, but the mathematical mechanism for having created it makes horrible sense (Lanier isn’t that interested in culprits, though he finds all of Silicon Valley pretty callow).

He wears his tech credentials lightly, as he can afford to, having been there for the creation of the internet; he was chief scientist of the engineering office of Internet2 and there in the very first chat-rooms, whence he draws the conclusion that I found the least convincing: even at its incipience, online communication tended towards the hostile. “Sometimes, out of nowhere, I would get into a fight with someone … It was so weird. We’d start insulting each other, trying to score points.” Since this all predated algorithmic manipulation, and cannot be blamed on Facebook, he concludes that we have pack behaviours and solitary behaviours: in a pack, we become locked in internecine competition; on our own “we’re more free. We’re cautious, but also more capable of joy.”

This flattens out some vital distinctions: there’s a difference between getting together to talk to strangers about why your celibacy is a woman’s fault, and mustering online to start the Arab spring. Silicon Valley has a distinctive way of looking at things: have big idea; iterate; fix; iterate again. It works well in software design, but it’s possible that to apply to very complex systems (like human beings), the big idea has to be refined a little more before it’s tested.

Lanier explicitly addresses this in chapter eight, Social Media Doesn’t Want You to Have Economic Dignity, as he describes how our modern reality was seeded by that mindset, those peculiar yes/no certainties of the web’s earliest creators. The internet was built with no way to make or get payments, no way to find other people you might like. “Everyone knew these functions … would be needed. We figured it would be wiser to let entrepreneurs fill in the blanks than to leave that task to government … We foolishly laid the foundations for global monopolies.”

Given the network effect – that Uber only works if everyone is on it – a thousand flowers were never going to bloom. There’s only room for one and it’s a Venus fly trap. The same libertarian spirit also instituted the peculiar economics of the internet: software had to be free, because only that way would it be open (“everyone knew that software would eventually become more important than law, so the prospect of a world running on hidden code was dark and creepy”). Yet that meant programmers wouldn’t be paid: they would create free code and make money by solving problems later.

And so the gig economy was born, this highly skilled field spreading its insecurity to low-skilled ones, food delivery, retail. Neo-Marxians would have something to say about capital in all this but Lanier emphatically doesn’t claim to have all the answers. “Please take what you can use from me. I know I don’t know everything,” he says in a winsome footnote.

His most dispiriting observations are those about what social media does to politics – biased, “not towards the left or right, but downwards”. If triggering emotions is the highest prize, and negative emotions are easier to trigger, how could social media not make you sad? If your consumption of content is tailored by near limitless observations harvested about people like you, how could your universe not collapse into the partial depiction of reality that people like you also enjoy? How could empathy and respect for difference thrive in this environment? Where’s the incentive to stamp out fake accounts, fake news, paid troll armies, dyspeptic bots?

I finished this stark but exuberant account not fearing for the future so much as amazed the world wasn’t already even worse.

avid
24th September 2018, 14:52
As an advocate of IT in the creative many years ago, I jumped on the ‘bandwagon’ of mass communication as a marketing tool. Then it became more and more ‘personal’, inveigling normal folk into communication via games, forums, and criticising those who were not taking part, blackmail! One was defiled for not being a ‘friend’ on MySpace or FB. Even my relatives scorned me for being so anonymous. After years of mistakes, I have whittled down to 4 contacts out of locale necessity, as they don’t answer emails, or have time to talk on their ‘phones. I have messages berating me for cutting out even ‘loved ones’ from my opinions and carings, but I shall not give in. Why do I want my issues/pleasantries shared across the globe? Why do all and sundry need to know about insignificant me? However, I do need minimal contacts for my own security, so will curtail most who wish to access me randomly, therefore there is a teeny weeny bit of positivity in some social media in limited circumstances.

RunningDeer
24th September 2018, 15:08
HIGHLY recommended. (Trust me. :) )
LOOK UP


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dLU6fk9QY
This is a great video, with lots of truth. It's interesting that I went to the youtube as I was curious as to how many views it had received. It seems this guy makes quite a few videos and has a very large "following" so I guess he doesn't practice what he preaches. He is obviously spending a lot of time in front of one screen or another.
Gary Turk YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/GaryTurkFilm/videos)

I suspect Gary Turk’s subscriber count is high because his messages rings true. So his vids go viral and people subscribe. He’s only uploaded 15 videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/GaryTurkFilm/videos) since he joined YouTube on December 4, 2013. To date, his total view count (https://www.youtube.com/user/GaryTurkFilm/about) is 62,344,301. (as of this posting)

The last upload was 6 months ago. Before that 11 months, the next five vids were a year ago, then four were 2 years ago and two were 3 years, and his first upload was 4 years ago.


https://i.imgur.com/svtuSJ8.jpg


Foxie Loxie
24th September 2018, 21:33
avid....WAY TO GO!! :highfive:

HaveBlue
28th September 2018, 12:07
That 'Look Up - Gary Turk' vid to me has a not so subtle secondary message of 'sure put down the phone' (we know it is always waiting when you get back - with 3 missed calls) but go out and act like a pathetic beta male lost puppy to some girl who will then hopefully feel sorry for you and 'take you in' as your surrogate mother, treat you as such, give you sex (for a while) that produces another her in infant form. If you do what you are told and never raise your voice above a polite inquiry, you will be permitted to go to work each day but must not earn more than she does.
It is all very sinister and foreboding. It gives me the creeps actually. (recall Trump speech about the poor frozen snake)

Note the 'such a nice inoffensive soy boy like 'man' reading a teleprompter so sincerely, with such worldly wisdom for his young age. Living the English version of the American dream. (I think George Carlin said it best - You have to be asleep to believe it! He also said 'they don't give an eff about you' twice to make sure you get it).

Think I'm being too cynical? Watch it again. Looks like Tavistock and Brave New World to me. Can you spell emasculation? Can you imagine a boot on your neck - forever? By all means remove your cellphone from the belt holder and replace it with an appropriate sidearm such as a 45 Colt. Rid society of 'Dirty old George' (Bush snr Cop a feel types) and bring back Dirty Harry (who would shoot that cellphone right from your hand). When everyone is packing, nobody dares. Make men MEN again!

peterpam
28th September 2018, 12:32
Interesting discussion, and probably one that's been repeated through the years.
I wonder -- if smart phones are destroying this generation,
did television destroy my generation - and radio the generation before?

Everyone who won't have a smart phone because you don't want to be sucked into the transhuman overmind,
are you ready to give up your Comcast or DirectTV too?
Programming is programming, whether delivered on a small or large screen.

Seems to me everything that Dr. Jean Twenge said about smartphones equally applies to television, and most probably other devices - even time spent at the computer.
TV socially isolates people and neighbors as people stare at the tube instead of socializing for real -- less face-to-face interaction.
If you stare at the TV or computer all day, what's the chance you will be reading a 300 page book? TV is a totally passive, one-way device.
Only 8% of the population read books anymore and much of that reading is fluff -- that precipitous drop in reading was well on its way before the advent of smartphones.
Plus, physical health is in jeopardy when average TV viewing is 4 1/2 hours a day -- that's 1642 hours a year, or over two months. TWO MONTHS!
Who knows how much time in comparison is spent by people sitting at their computers -- I'd bet it's equal to that or more.
TV and computers promotes a sedentary lifestyle, usually including snacks on junk food resulting in progressive ailments. There's an epidemic of diabetes and coronary problems.
TV exposes people to negative influences and promotes negative behavior -- shows and commercials usually show violence, alcohol, drug use and aberrant sex in a positive light.
Watching intense emotions on TV can affect you mentally. Those horror, violent, and frightful scenes depict physical, verbal, and other forms of abuse that can affect you psychologically.
Many TV programs do not make you think anything. They bombard you with hyper-dramatic content and you passively receive it.
This overtime can affect your analytical and creative thinking abilities.
At least with a smartphone one can actively communicate with another human being in real time
-- can anyone say the same thing during hours spent staring at a TV?

It's an interesting slippery slope -- but I find it disingenuous for one generation to be all upset over new technology
when the old technology is just as bad or worse.
But is anyone willing to recognize this and then not use these things?
If so, then I guess you'll have to consider never using a calculator too -- I've heard the same argument that the technology of a calculator
dumbs us down because we're not figuring out the math problem the old way, in our head.
Many other devices could be brought into the same discussion.

Of course, forum members here posting things to each other have no similarity to what goes on with smartphones....
ah, yeah.

There's a lot of common sense in this post. I think it comes down to balance. Any of the technologies you mentioned can be good or bad, it's how we use them and how much we use them.

Foxie Loxie
28th September 2018, 13:58
What I'm wondering is IF it is true that 5G unravels the DNA....if so, that is a whole 'nother ballgame?!

Bill Ryan
5th November 2018, 03:56
https://i0.wp.com/www.studentnewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/children-playing_gary-varvel.jpg

onawah
8th November 2018, 20:27
Government Study Finds ‘Clear Evidence’ for Heart Tumors From Cellphone Radiation
Written by Dr. Joseph Mercola
11/8/18
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/11/14/heart-tumors-from-cellphone-radiation.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=artTest_A4&utm_campaign=20181108Z1_UCM&et_cid=DM245360&et_rid=465195496

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified cellphones as a Group 2B “possible carcinogen” in 2011. Since then, evidence of harm has only grown stronger
Two major studies published in 2018 link cellphone radiation to DNA damage and cancer
Research by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” for heart tumors in male rats. These tumors started developing around week 70, and are similar to human acoustic neuromas that previous studies have linked to cellphone use
NTP also found “some evidence” of brain tumors and adrenal gland tumors in male rats, as well as “equivocal” or unclear evidence of tumors in female rats and mice of both genders
Corroborating evidence published by the Ramazzini Institute also shows clear link between cellphone radiation and Schwann cell tumors, but at a much lower power level than that used by NTP, and below the U.S. safety limits set by the Federal Communications Commission
Cellphones were classified as a Group 2B “possible carcinogen”1 in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization and the global gold-standard for the classification of toxins.

This classification was based on evidence showing that non-ionizing electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation from cellphones can trigger abnormal cell growth and tumors.2,3 In my view, this is a mistake and, just like smoking, I am confident it will be recategorized in the future to a 1A carcinogen.

Earlier this year, preliminary findings of two government-funded animal studies4 were published that further support the notion that cellphone radiation has carcinogenic potential.

The finalized report5 of these two studies — conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency research program under the auspices of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences — was released November 1, 2018. While the preliminary report released in February 2018 significantly downplayed the findings, subsequent peer review upgraded the findings of risk.

Cellphone Radiation Linked to Brain and Heart Tumors
The NTP rates cancer risk based on four categories of evidence: “clear evidence” (highest), “some evidence,” “equivocal evidence,” and “no evidence” (lowest). According to the NTPs final report, the two studies, done on mice and rats of both sexes, found:6

• Clear evidence for heart tumors (malignant schwannomas) in male rats. These types of tumors started developing around week 70, and are very similar to acoustic neuromas found in humans, a benign type of tumor that previous studies have linked to cellphone use

• Some evidence of brain tumors (malignant gliomas) in male rats. Glial cell hyperplasias — indicative of precancerous lesions — began developing around week 58.

(Incidentally, incidence of glioblastoma multiforme (the deadliest type of brain tumor) more than doubled in the U.K. between 1995 and 2015.7,8 According to the authors of the analysis, the dramatic increase is likely due to “widespread environmental or lifestyle factors,” which would include cellphone usage)

• Some evidence of adrenal gland tumors in male rats, both benign and malignant tumors and/or complex combined pheochromocytoma

• Equivocal or unclear evidence of tumors in female rats and mice of both genders

The studies also found evidence of:

• Low body weight in female rats and newborns exposed to high levels of radiation during pregnancy and lactation

• DNA damage and damage to heart tissue in exposed male and female rats, but not mice

• Prostate, liver and pancreatic tumors in both rats and mice

Are Humans at Risk?
According to The New York Times:9

“‘We believe that the link between radio-frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real,’ John Bucher, a senior scientist at the National Toxicology Program, said in a statement.

But he cautioned that the exposure levels and durations were far greater than what people typically encounter, and thus cannot ‘be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience’ …

The lowest level of radiation in the federal study was equal to the maximum exposure that federal regulations allow for cellphone users … The highest level was four times higher than the permitted maximum.”

While the NTP insists the exposure — nine hours a day for two years, which is the lifetime of a rodent — is far more extensive than that of heavy cellphone users, I would strongly disagree, seeing how many, especially the younger generation, have their cellphones turned on and near their body 24/7.

Many are literally sleeping with their phone beneath their pillow. What’s more, cellphones are not the sole source of radiofrequency (RF) EMFs.

Tablets, computers, smart TVs, wireless baby monitors and smart meters, just to name a few, are also sources of similarly harmful radiation, and an even stronger EMF exposure at about the same 5 GHz frequency are Wi-Fi routers that virtually everyone is exposed to 24/7. So, my guess is that the RF-EMF exposure is actually far greater than the one tested in the study.

Why Evidence of Rodent Schwannomas Could Spell Trouble for Human Health
As explained by Louis Slesin, Ph.D., editor and publisher of Microwave News, the increased incidence of schwannomas in rodents exposed to radiofrequencies is of great concern for public health:10

“Schwann cells play a key role in the functioning of the peripheral nervous system. They make the myelin sheath, which insulates nerve fibers and helps speed the conduction of electrical impulses. There are Schwann cells just about everywhere there are peripheral nerve fibers. They are present in most organs of the body — whether mice, rats or humans.

Schwann cell tumors are called schwannomas. The NTP found schwannomas in many other organs, in addition to the heart, of rats chronically exposed to cellphone radiation. These included a variety of glands (pituitary, salivary and thymus), the trigeminal nerve and the eye … The NTP also saw schwannomas in the uterus, ovary and vagina of female rats.

The brain has no Schwann cells —the brain is part of the central nervous system. There, glial cells play a similar function. In fact, Schwann cells are a type of glial cell … Tumors of the glial cells are called gliomas. The NTP also saw an increase in glioma among the male rats exposed to GSM and CDMA radiation …

While schwannomas and gliomas are commonly noncancerous tumors, they can develop into malignant schwannomas or glioblastomas … The implication is that instead of searching for consistency in radio frequencies’ ability to cause cancer in specific organs, the emphasis should now be on specific cell types — beginning with Schwann cells in the periphery and glial cells in the brain.”

Mitochondrial Dysfunction Is the Primary Hazard of Cellphone Radiation
In my view, the primary hazard of cellphone radiation is not brain cancer per se but rather systemic cellular and mitochondrial damage,11,12,13,14 which can contribute to any number of health problems and chronic diseases. The process begins when low−frequency microwave radiation activates voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs)15 — channels in the outer membrane of your cells.

Once activated, the VGCCs open up, allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions into the cell. This increased intracellular calcium and the accompanying increase in calcium signaling appears to be responsible for a majority of the damage that occurs. This is reviewed in more detail in my interview with professor Martin Pall below.

For example, excess calcium activates nitric oxide, and while nitric oxide has many health benefits, massively excessive nitric oxide reacts with superoxide to produce peroxynitrites — extremely potent oxidant stressors.16 Peroxynitrites in turn:

Modify tyrosine molecules in proteins to create nitrotyrosine and nitration of structural protein.17 Changes from nitration are visible in human biopsy of atherosclerosis, myocardial ischemia, inflammatory bowel disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and septic lung disease18
Can cause single-strand DNA breaks19
This pathway of oxidative destruction — triggered by low−frequency radiation emitted from mobile devices — may partially explain the unprecedented growth rate of chronic disease since 1990,20 and is a far greater concern than brain tumors.

Download Interview Transcript
ZAqmT9KJBC8
Heart Problems, Neurological Disorders and Infertility Are Risks of EMF Exposure
While an estimated 80,000 U.S. men, women and children are diagnosed with a brain tumor each year,21 another 787,000 people die from heart disease.22 So, while the relative rarity of brain cancer may lead you to believe that cellphone use is safe, that’s only because you’re looking at a less prevalent outcome.

Cellphone radiation has also been shown to have a significant impact on neurological and mental health,23 contributing to and/or worsening anxiety, depression and dementia, for example, and all of these conditions are rampant and growing more prevalent, even if brain cancer cases are lagging. (This also makes sense as brain dysfunction will occur much faster than a tumor, which can take decades.)

Research also suggests excessive EMF exposure is contributing to reproductive problems. For example, researchers have found prenatal exposure to power-frequency fields can nearly triple a pregnant woman’s risk of miscarriage.24

According to lead author and senior research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s research division, Dr. De-Kun Li,25 “This study provides fresh evidence, directly from a human population, that magnetic field exposure in daily life could have adverse health impacts,” adding his findings “should bring attention to this potentially important environmental hazard to pregnant women.”

According to Li, there are at least six other studies, in addition to two of his own, showing this link.26,27,28,29,30 EMF exposure may also play a significant role in testicular cancer and male infertility.

Studies have linked low-level electromagnetic radiation exposure from cellphones to an 8 percent reduction in sperm motility and a 9 percent reduction in sperm viability.31,32 Wi-Fi equipped laptop computers have also been linked to decreased sperm motility and an increase in sperm DNA fragmentation after just four hours of use.33

US Food and Drug Administration Stands Firm on Cellphone Safety
NTP’s final report has now been given to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the two agencies involved in the regulation of cellphones and assessment of health risks. Unfortunately, the FDA appears unwilling to change its stance on cellphone safety.

This is no surprise as the telecommunication industry has far more political lobbying influence than Big Pharma and Big Food combined. To expect anything other than full support for the telecommunication industry would be irrational.

In a November 1 press statement, Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the F.D.A.’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health reaffirmed the agency’s position, saying:34

“The Food and Drug Administration is charged with ensuring cellphones — and any radiation-emitting electronic product — are safe for the public to use. Our scientific expertise and input, along with other health agencies, are used by the [FCC] to set the standards for exposure limits of radiation from cellphones, called radiofrequency energy …

We reviewed the recently finalized research conducted by our colleagues at the [NTP] … [W]e disagree, however, with the conclusions of their final report regarding ‘clear evidence’ of carcinogenic activity in rodents exposed to radiofrequency energy.

In the NTP study, researchers looked at the effects of exposing rodents to extremely high levels of radiofrequency throughout the entire body. This is commonly done in these types of hazard identification studies and means that the study tested levels of radiofrequency energy exposures considerably above the current whole body safety limits for cell phones … [T]hese findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.

NTP hosted a three-day peer review of this study in March, as part of their normal process for issuing scientific reports … which included an assessment of the study methods and data by a panel of 15 peer reviewers to determine the basis of evidence for the final report.

Based on their assessment, the panel voted to upgrade the conclusions from some evidence to clear evidence for malignant heart schwannomas in male rats, and from equivocal (ambigious) to some evidence for malignant gliomas of the brain and benign tumors of the adrenal gland in male rats. It’s important to note that the vote does not mean new data or findings were reported in the final assessment …

Based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue, the totality of the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits. We believe the existing safety limits for cellphones remain acceptable for protecting the public health.”

NTP Findings Have Already Been Reproduced, and at Power Levels Below FCC Limits
While the FDA insists it “must thoroughly evaluate and take into consideration the totality of the data, and do so within the context of the complete body of evidence rather than drawing conclusions from the results of a single study,” it fails to address the elephant in the room, which is the corroborating evidence published by the Ramazzini Institute just one month after the NTP released its preliminary report in February 2018.

The Ramazzini study35 reproduces and clearly supports the NTP’s findings, showing a clear link between cellphone radiation and Schwann cell tumors (schwannomas)36,37,38 — but at a much lower power level than that used by NTP.

While NTP used radiofrequency (RF) levels comparable to what’s emitted by 2G and 3G cellphones (near-field exposure), Ramazzini simulated exposure to cellphone towers (far-field exposure). Ramazzini’s rats were exposed to 1.8 GHz GSM radiation at electric field strengths of 5, 25 and 50 volts per meter39 for 19 hours a day, starting at birth until the rats died either from age or illness.

To facilitate comparison, the researchers converted their measurements to watts per kilogram of body weight (W/kg), which is what the NTP used. Overall, the radiation dose administered in the Ramazzini study was up to 1,000 times lower than the NTP’s — and below the U.S. limits set by the FCC — yet the results are strikingly similar.

As in the NTP studies, exposed male rats developed statistically higher rates of heart schwannomas than unexposed rats. They also found some evidence, although weaker, that RF exposure increased rates of glial tumors in the brains of female rats.

The fact that the Ramazzini study used a radiation dose well below FCC limits yet still reproduced the NTP’s findings of cancer really weakens the FDA’s claims of safety.

Telling Trend: Silicon Valley Founders Don’t Want Their Own Kids to Use the Technology They Created
The good news is that after more than a decade of mounting warnings, many are finally starting to take cellphone exposure seriously — at least as it pertains to their kids. Adults still struggle to curb their own cellphone and computer use, but at least minimizing exposure to children is a step in the right direction, and in my view a really crucial one.

The New York Times recently reported on the trend among Silicon Valley parents to forbid the use of tablets, computers, cellphones and TV’s by their young children, and nannies are increasingly having to sign contracts to that end. New York Times contributor Nellie Bowles writes:40

“Even a little screen time can be so deeply addictive, some parents believe, that it’s best if a child neither touches nor sees any of these glittering rectangles. These particular parents, after all, deeply understand their allure … Enter the Silicon Valley nanny, who each day returns to the time before screens.

‘Usually a day consists of me being allowed to take them to the park, introduce them to card games,’ said Jordin Altmann, 24, a nanny in San Jose, of her charges. ‘Board games are huge. Almost every parent I work for is very strong about the child not having any technical experience at all … In the last two years, it’s become a very big deal’ …

The fear of screens has reached the level of panic in Silicon Valley. Vigilantes now post photos to parenting message boards of possible nannies using cellphones near children. Which is to say, the very people building these glowing hyper-stimulating portals have become increasingly terrified of them …

‘The people who are closest to tech are the most strict about it at home,’ said Lynn Perkins, the C.E.O. of UrbanSitter, which she says has 500,000 sitters in the network throughout the United States. ‘We see that trend with our nannies very clearly.’”

Take Safety Precautions to Lower Your Family’s EMF Exposure
cellphone radiation
There’s no doubt in my mind that RF-EMF exposure is a significant health hazard that will damage your DNA and contribute to premature death. It needs to be addressed if you’re concerned about your health, and that of your family. To learn more about the special risks RF-EMF pose to your little ones, see “Children’s Health Expert Panel on Cellphones and Wi-Fi.”

To protect yourself and your family from cellphone radiation and other sources of harmful EMF’s, consider taking the following precautions:

Avoid carrying your cellphone on your body unless in airplane mode and never sleep with it in your bedroom unless it is in airplane mode. Even in airplane mode it can emit signals, which is why I put my phone in a Faraday bag.41

When using your cellphone, use the speaker phone and hold the phone at least 3 feet away from you. Seek to radically decrease your time on the cellphone. I typically use my cellphone less than 30 minutes a month, and mostly when traveling. Instead, use VoIP software phones that you can use while connected to the internet via a wired connection.

Connect your desktop computer to the internet via a wired Ethernet connection and be sure to put your desktop in airplane mode. Also avoid wireless keyboards, trackballs, mice, game systems, printers and portable house phones. Opt for the wired versions.

If you must use Wi-Fi, shut it off when not in use, especially at night when you are sleeping. Ideally, work toward hardwiring your house so you can eliminate Wi-Fi altogether. If you have a notebook without any Ethernet ports, a USB Ethernet adapter will allow you to connect to the internet with a wired connection.

Shut off the electricity to your bedroom at night. This typically works to reduce electrical fields from the wires in your wall unless there is an adjoining room next to your bedroom. If that is the case you will need to use a meter to determine if you also need to turn off power in the adjacent room.

Use a battery-powered alarm clock, ideally one without any light. I use a talking clock for the visually impaired.42

If you still use a microwave oven, consider replacing it with a steam convection oven, which will heat your food as quickly and far more safely.

Avoid using “smart” appliances and thermostats that depend on wireless signaling. This would include all new “smart” TVs. They are called smart because they emit a Wi-Fi signal and, unlike your computer, you cannot shut the Wi-Fi signal off. Consider using a large computer monitor as your TV instead, as they don’t emit Wi-Fi.

Refuse smart meters as long as you can, or add a shield to an existing smart meter, some of which have been shown to reduce radiation by 98 to 99 percent.43

Consider moving your baby’s bed into your room instead of using a wireless baby monitor. Alternatively, use a hard-wired monitor.

Replace CFL bulbs with incandescent bulbs. Ideally remove all fluorescent lights from your house. Not only do they emit unhealthy light, but more importantly, they will actually transfer current to your body just being close to the bulbs."

onawah
11th November 2018, 19:03
Clear Evidence Of Cancer” From Cell Phone Radiation:
U.S. National Toxicology Program Releases Final Report On Animal Study
https://ehtrust.org/clear-evidence-of-cancer-from-cell-phone-radiation-u-s-national-toxicology-program-releases-final-report-on-animal-study/

"The final peer reviewed NIH reports confirm evidence of an association between cell phone radiation and both heart and brain cancers in large-scale animal study.

U.S. National Institutes of Health National Toxicology Program (NTP) concludes that there is “clear evidence” that male rats developed cancerous heart tumors from exposure to cell phone radio frequency radiation according to final reports on Rats and Mice released today. In addition, they conclude the increased tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats were “some evidence” of cancer from the cell phone radiation exposure. According to NIH, the final reports on rats and mice represent “the consensus of NTP” and a panel of external scientific experts who reviewed the study data in March and voted to strengthen the conclusion that cell phone radiation caused health effects. Scientists are now calling for federal action – a quantitative risk assessment and protective policies to reduce wireless exposure.

John Bucher, PhD, NTP senior scientist, stated in the NIH press release, “We believe that the link between radio frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real, and the external experts agreed.”

The NIH/NTP Website has released final reports from the rat and mouse studies, a press release and new fact sheet.

“This animal evidence, together with the extensive human evidence, coupled with the rising incidence of brain cancers in young people in the U.S., conclusively confirms that radio frequency radiation is a Category 1 human carcinogen,” explains Anthony Miller MD, University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health Professor Emeritus, author of 600 scientific publications medical advisor to Environmental Health Trust (EHT), who has served as an advisor to the World Health Organization and co-authored a review paper of the scientific evidence in the journal Environmental Research presenting these conclusions.

EHT has launched a public awareness campaign to raise awareness about how to reduce exposure to cell phone and wireless radiation. The campaign includes printable posters, postcards and shareable videos.

“More than a decade since it was first proposed, and after unprecedented reviews, the NTP has finally released a report confirming what hundreds of other studies have shown—namely that cell phone radiation levels we all encounter every day significantly increase malignant rare tumors of the brain and nerves as well as cause damage to the heart and DNA. Were this any other modern agent, the appropriate regulatory agencies would be taking immediate action to reduce exposures. It is unconscionable that we continue to give millions (of children) the capacity to keep these cancer-increasing devices on their bodies all day or night. People have a right to know that phones are two-way, microwave-radiating radios that should be used with caution. United States owes its citizens better,“ stated Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, Visiting Professor of Medicine at Hebrew University and President of Environmental Health Trust. “We would not give children cigarettes and alcohol. Why are we giving them devices that increase their risk of cancer years later?”

“Cell phones expose us to levels 2 to 10 times higher than FCC according to cell phone radiation tests conducted by the French National Frequencies Agency on hundreds of cell phones. This is because cell phones are not tested in the way they are used—touching the body. When phones are radiation tested at body contact, they exceed limits,“ stated Davis, referring to the Phonegate Scandal that resulted in phones being removed from the market in Europe.

“An important lesson that should be learned from this is we can no longer assume any current or future wireless technology is safe.” Ronald Melnick, PhD, who led the design of the NTP study in his 28-year career as a scientist at the National Toxicology Program and is currently senior advisor to Environmental Health Trust (EHT), stated, “The NTP studies in experimental animals were designed to test the long held assumption that radio frequency radiation at seemingly ‘low’ non-thermal exposure intensities could not cause harmful health effects. It failed the test. Cell phone radiation clearly caused cancer in these animals.” Read Dr. Melnick’s full statement here.

“What should happen now is the FDA should be immediately working on developing a quantitative risk assessment from this data and in the meantime the FDA, FCC and other agencies should promote cautionary measures for the population—especially for children,” said Melnick who recently published an article in the journal Environmental Research debunking widely circulated criticisms of the NTP study.

“Based on these and other peer-reviewed findings, if radiofrequency radiation were a drug, it would have been pulled off the market. Peer-reviewed studies have found effects on brain development, memory, sleep and fertility and other biologically important endpoints from oxidative stress to headaches to hearing and vision problems, especially in children,” Davis added.”Over 236 scientists from 41 nations who have published peer-reviewed research on this issue are appealing to the United Nations for stronger regulations to reduce public exposure.”

“Considering the widespread exposure among our children and the proliferation of cell towers to prepare for 5G, these findings should not be minimized. Effects were found at non-thermal levels, which means that FCC limits are not protective. Until research tells us otherwise, we can no longer assume wireless devices are safe,” said Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of EHT. “The rollout of 5G small cells must be halted. Schools need to install wired Internet networks and use cords to connect devices. Landlines should be maintained throughout communities. Practical solutions exist such as ethernet and fiber optic networks. Let’s use them.

“It is time for the National Cancer Institute, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control to update their websites with concise recommendations that the public should reduce exposure. Public Health Departments need to launch ongoing public awareness campaigns to educate the public about how to reduce emissions and exposures. Everyone needs to understand just how easy it is to use safe wired technologies, especially at home. Employers need to prioritize this issue and make changes in the workplace to limit and minimize emissions and exposures in the workplace. So far, they have been given no choice. We have a responsibility to living and future generations to take action on this issue now.”

2XM2rKrYGrc

Environmental Health Trust Recommendations

In light of the NTP study EHT recommends:

The FDA prioritize and perform a quantitative risk assessment to determine the levels of risk to humans.
The private sector launch a research and development program that will ensure consumers have safe technology choices available in the marketplace—meaning devices that have wired connection capability with the ability to quick-disconnect all wireless/bluetooth functions.
The EPA along with relevant health agencies launch a full systematic and independent review of all scientific evidence.
The CDC, NCI and FDA issue clear comprehensive public health recommendations to the public about how to reduce personal firsthand and secondhand exposures to radiation emitted by cell phones, tablets and all wireless devices, accessories and appliances via well-funded ongoing public awareness campaigns.
Policy that will eliminate and reduce exposure from cell towers, indoor and outdoor base stations and Wi-Fi in neighborhoods, community centers, healthcare facilities, places of worship and schools.
Informational labeling on all cell phones and wireless devices that are capable of emitting radio frequency radiation.
An immediate full halt to 5G and small cell deployment.
Background Summary

In 1999, the FDA nominated cell phone radiation to the NTP for large-scale animal studies, stating, “the existing exposure guidelines are based on protection from acute injury from thermal effects of RFR exposure, and may not be protective against any non-thermal effects of chronic exposures.”

On November 1, 2018 the National Toxicology Program (NTP) released their final reports on rats and mice exposed to long term radiofrequency radiation.

The final reports concurred with the March peer review panel that the malignant schwannoma tumors found in the heart of male rats be scientifically categorized as “clear evidence of carcinogenicity” and that the malignant gliomas found in the brain of male rats be categorized as “some evidence of carcinogenicity.” In addition, the increased tumors of the adrenal medulla in male rats exposed to the GSM type of cell phone radiation were categorized as “some evidence of carcinogenicity,” adding a new type of tumor thought to be caused by the exposure. Thus, NIH accepted all of the expert peer reviewer recommendations to strengthen the conclusions regarding several effects from the exposure. The report also documents statistically significant increases in an unusual pattern of cardiomyopathy, or damage to heart tissue, in exposed male and female rats.

In addition to the heart and brain cancers, statistically significant increased numbers of tumors were found in other organs at one or more of the exposure levels studied, including the prostate gland, pituitary gland, adrenal gland, liver and pancreas.

Environmental Health Recommends Reducing Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation Exposure by

Used a corded phone whenever possible to minimize cell phone use.
Keep the cell phone away from your head and body.
When talking on the cell phone, use speakerphone or wired airtube headset to reduce exposure to your brain.
Avoid carrying your phone against the body like in a pocket, sock, bra or spandex pants.
Laptops and tablets should always be placed on a table, not on your lap.
Be aware of how close children are to you when you are using a cell phone or wireless device and minimize their exposure. For example do not rest a cell phone on your baby or hold a transmitting device near their bodies.
Choose wired Internet (ethernet cable modems) at home/office instead of wireless systems. Use ethernet wired (not wireless) computers to do as much of your internet connection and social media and streaming videos.
Choose non-wireless options instead of wireless for tech and accessories such as computers, laptops, printers, gaming consoles and handsets, security, mouse, keyboard, video cameras, HVAC, speakers, headphones, microphones and other accessories.
Avoid sleeping next to your cell phone or wireless device. Cell phones should be powered off at night. If you use your cell phone as an alarm clock, turn the phone to airplane mode.
Do not charge cell phones or electronics near your bed at night.
Turn your phone off or on airplane mode with Wi-Fi/Bluetooth OFF more. Even in standby mode, your phone emits RF energy because it is constantly searching for service or new messages. If you do not need your cell phone, simply turn it off. This also applies to all other wireless devices whereby the Wi-Fi antennas can be powered off. Wifi laptops tablets and other devices such as gaming devices are always transmitting even if you are not using them so remember to power them off.
EHT’s new public awareness posters and public service videos can be found at https://ehtrust.org/yes-cell-phones-cause-cancer-this-is-how-you-reduce-your-cell-phone-radiation-exposure/ "

About Environmental Health Trust

EHT is a virtual scientific thinktank conducting cutting-edge research on environmental health risks with some of the world’s top researchers, and developing pilot public educational programs in Jackson, Wyoming. EHT educates individuals, health professionals and communities about policy changes needed to reduce those risks. Currently, EHT is addressing health effects of emissions caused by use of cell phones and other wireless devices and networks and recommends reducing exposure to reduce risk. The Environmental Health Trust maintains a regularly updated database of worldwide precautionary policies on cell phone radiation as more than a dozen countries officially recommend reducing wireless exposure to children and have policies in place to reduce public exposure."

greybeard
11th November 2018, 19:46
Thanks onawah et all.
I have forwarded the report to my whole family and friends.
Chris

onawah
14th November 2018, 19:08
Government Study Finds ‘Clear Evidence’ for Heart Tumors From Cellphone Radiation
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
November 14, 2018
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/11/14/heart-tumors-from-cellphone-radiation.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20181114Z1_B_UCM&et_cid=DM252142&et_rid=470317950

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified cellphones as a Group 2B “possible carcinogen” in 2011. Since then, evidence of harm has only grown stronger
Two major studies published in 2018 link cellphone radiation to DNA damage and cancer
Research by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” for heart tumors in male rats. These tumors started developing around week 70, and are similar to human acoustic neuromas that previous studies have linked to cellphone use
NTP also found “some evidence” of brain tumors and adrenal gland tumors in male rats, as well as “equivocal” or unclear evidence of tumors in female rats and mice of both genders
Corroborating evidence published by the Ramazzini Institute also shows a clear link between cellphone radiation and Schwann cell tumors, but at a much lower power level than that used by NTP, and below the U.S. safety limits set by the Federal Communications Commission
Cellphones were classified as a Group 2B “possible carcinogen”1 in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization and the global gold standard for the classification of toxins.

This classification was based on evidence showing that nonionizing electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation from cellphones can trigger abnormal cell growth and tumors.2,3 In my view, this is a mistake and, just like smoking, I am confident it will be recategorized in the future to a 1A carcinogen.

Earlier this year, preliminary findings of two government-funded animal studies4 were published that further support the notion that cellphone radiation has carcinogenic potential.

The finalized report5 of these two studies — conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency research program under the auspices of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences — was released November 1, 2018. While the preliminary report released in February 2018 significantly downplayed the findings, subsequent peer review upgraded the findings of risk.

Cellphone Radiation Linked to Brain and Heart Tumors
The NTP rates cancer risk based on four categories of evidence: “clear evidence” (highest); “some evidence;” “equivocal evidence;” and “no evidence” (lowest). According to the NTP’s final report, the two studies, done on mice and rats of both sexes, found:6

• Clear evidence for heart tumors (malignant schwannomas) in male rats. These types of tumors started developing around week 70, and are very similar to acoustic neuromas found in humans, a benign type of tumor that previous studies have linked to cellphone use

• Some evidence of brain tumors (malignant gliomas) in male rats. Glial cell hyperplasias — indicative of precancerous lesions — began developing around week 58.

(Incidentally, incidence of glioblastoma multiforme (the deadliest type of brain tumor) more than doubled in the U.K. between 1995 and 2015.7,8 According to the authors of the analysis, the dramatic increase is likely due to “widespread environmental or lifestyle factors,” which would include cellphone usage)

• Some evidence of adrenal gland tumors in male rats, both benign and malignant tumors and/or complex combined pheochromocytoma

• Equivocal or unclear evidence of tumors in female rats and mice of both genders

The studies also found evidence of:

• Low body weight in female rats and newborns exposed to high levels of radiation during pregnancy and lactation

• DNA damage and damage to heart tissue in exposed male and female rats, but not mice

• Prostate, liver and pancreatic tumors in both rats and mice

Are Humans at Risk?
According to The New York Times:9

“‘We believe that the link between radio-frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real,’ John Bucher, a senior scientist at the National Toxicology Program, said in a statement.

But he cautioned that the exposure levels and durations were far greater than what people typically encounter, and thus cannot ‘be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience’ …

The lowest level of radiation in the federal study was equal to the maximum exposure that federal regulations allow for cellphone users … The highest level was four times higher than the permitted maximum.”

While the NTP insists the exposure — nine hours a day for two years, which is the lifetime of a rodent — is far more extensive than that of heavy cellphone users, I would strongly disagree, seeing how many, especially the younger generation, have their cellphones turned on and near their body 24/7.

Many are literally sleeping with their phone beneath their pillow. What’s more, cellphones are not the sole source of radiofrequency (RF) EMFs. Wi-Fi and Bluetooth-enabled tablets, computers, smart TVs, wireless baby monitors, cordless phones, smart appliances, smart meters and nearby cellular phone basestations are sources of similarly harmful radiation, and most of us are exposed 24/7. So, my guess is that the duration of RF-EMF exposure is actually far greater than the one tested in the study.

Did NTP Minimize Press Coverage of Their Report?
According to Microwave News, the NTP may have purposely minimized press coverage of its final report, which upgraded the risks. “Reporters were given very little notice to join the NTP teleconference on the release of the report. Nor was there much time to prepare a story for publication,” Microwave News reports,10 adding they were not informed of the teleconference via email until 10:45 a.m. October 31.

The conference was held at 2 p.m. that same day. While NTP refused to state how many reporters were on the call, the transcript reveals only eight reporters asked questions, giving the impression that many likely missed the advisory. Editors also had precious little time to assign a reporter to cover the story. Microwave News adds:

“The news that the NTP now believes the cancer link is “real” was under embargo until the next day, November 1. That gave the news media less than 24 hours to prepare their stories, an unusually short time for a technically complex subject. The main reason for embargoes is to give reporters time to do their homework and prepare a clear and accurate write-up …

Even the fact that the report was coming out in less than a day was embargoed by the NTP. It apparently wanted no advance notice of any kind … There was one exception among major media outlets: The New York Times … As it happened, [William] Broad, a long-time member of the science desk, was already working on the story. He was making background calls a week earlier …

There’s a long history of New York Times science reporters — Broad included — downplaying, if not outright dismissing, news of electromagnetic health effects. Anyone wanting to conceal the fact that NTP had found ‘clear evidence’ that cellphone radiation could lead to cancer would likely leak the story to the Times. And the Times delivered.

Here’s the headline from its web site: ‘Study of Cellphone Risks Finds ‘Some Evidence’ of Link to Cancer, at Least in Male Rats’ … [T]here is the obvious error in the headline: NTP found more than ‘some evidence’ — it saw ‘clear evidence’ … The subhead … ‘Many Caveats Apply, and the Results Involve Radio Frequencies Long Out of Routine Use,’ offers additional — unjustifiable — reasons to discount the NTP finding.”

The New York Times also claims the results are out of date due to the fact they used 2G, which is no longer in widespread use, and that 3G, 4G and 5G are “far less successful at penetrating the bodies of humans” due to the higher frequencies. However, there’s no evidence to suggest the newer technologies are safer. Quite the contrary. As noted by Microwave News:

“Two different German labs have exposed mice to 3G. Cancer promotion was found in each case. The lead author of the second study, Alex Lerchl, concluded that 3G signals ‘obviously enhance the growth of tumors’ … The fact is that we don’t know whether the higher G’s are any safer than 2G. Believing so is simply wishful thinking.”

The NTP also downplayed the risks by stressing that “high exposure” was associated with cancer in male rats, when in fact the results in some instances revealed a greater effect at a lower dose.

Such nonlinear dose response was also found in Lerchl’s study, in which a dose 50 times lower than the highest dose resulted in a greater response. “At this point, one can only guess where the threshold for RF effects may be. It could be lower than now commonly believed, possibly much lower,” Microwave News notes.

Why Evidence of Rodent Schwannomas Could Spell Trouble for Human Health
As explained by Louis Slesin, Ph.D., editor and publisher of Microwave News, the increased incidence of schwannomas in rodents exposed to radiofrequencies is of great concern for public health:11

“Schwann cells play a key role in the functioning of the peripheral nervous system. They make the myelin sheath, which insulates nerve fibers and helps speed the conduction of electrical impulses. There are Schwann cells just about everywhere there are peripheral nerve fibers. They are present in most organs of the body — whether mice, rats or humans.

Schwann cell tumors are called schwannomas. The NTP found schwannomas in many other organs, in addition to the heart, of rats chronically exposed to cellphone radiation. These included a variety of glands (pituitary, salivary and thymus), the trigeminal nerve and the eye … The NTP also saw schwannomas in the uterus, ovary and vagina of female rats.

The brain has no Schwann cells — the brain is part of the central nervous system. There, glial cells play a similar function. In fact, Schwann cells are a type of glial cell … Tumors of the glial cells are called gliomas. The NTP also saw an increase in glioma among the male rats exposed to GSM and CDMA radiation …

While schwannomas and gliomas are commonly noncancerous tumors, they can develop into malignant schwannomas or glioblastomas … The implication is that instead of searching for consistency in radio frequencies’ ability to cause cancer in specific organs, the emphasis should now be on specific cell types — beginning with Schwann cells in the periphery and glial cells in the brain.”

Mitochondrial Dysfunction Is the Primary Hazard of Cellphone Radiation
In my view, the primary hazard of cellphone radiation is not brain cancer per se but rather systemic cellular and mitochondrial damage,12,13,14,15 which can contribute to any number of health problems and chronic diseases. The process begins when low-frequency microwave radiation activates voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs)16 — channels in the outer membrane of your cells.

Once activated, the VGCCs open up, allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions into the cell. This increased intracellular calcium and the accompanying increase in calcium signaling appears to be responsible for a majority of the damage that occurs. This is reviewed in more detail in my interview with professor Martin Pall below.

For example, excess calcium activates nitric oxide, and while nitric oxide has many health benefits, massively excessive nitric oxide reacts with superoxide to produce peroxynitrites — extremely potent oxidant stressors.17 Peroxynitrites in turn:

Can cause single-strand DNA breaks18
Modify tyrosine molecules in proteins to create nitrotyrosine and nitration of structural protein.19 Changes from nitration are visible in human biopsy of atherosclerosis, myocardial ischemia, inflammatory bowel disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and septic lung disease20
This pathway of oxidative destruction — triggered by low-frequency radiation emitted from mobile devices — may partially explain the unprecedented growth rate of chronic disease since 1990,21 and is a far greater concern than brain tumors.
ZAqmT9KJBC8
Heart Problems, Neurological Disorders and Infertility Are Risks of EMF Exposure
While an estimated 80,000 U.S. men, women and children are diagnosed with a brain tumor each year,22 another 787,000 people die from heart disease.23 So, while the relative rarity of brain cancer may lead you to believe that cellphone use is safe, that’s only because you’re looking at a less prevalent outcome.

Cellphone radiation has also been shown to have a significant impact on neurological and mental health,24 contributing to and/or worsening anxiety, depression and dementia, for example, and all of these conditions are rampant and growing more prevalent. (This also makes sense as brain dysfunction will occur much faster than a tumor, which can take decades.)

Research also suggests excessive EMF exposure is contributing to reproductive problems. For example, researchers have found prenatal exposure to power-frequency fields can nearly triple a pregnant woman’s risk of miscarriage.25

According to lead author and senior research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s research division, Dr. De-Kun Li,26 “This study provides fresh evidence, directly from a human population, that magnetic field exposure in daily life could have adverse health impacts,” adding his findings “should bring attention to this potentially important environmental hazard to pregnant women.”

According to Li, there are at least six other studies, in addition to two of his own, showing this link.27,28,29,30,31 EMF exposure may also play a significant role in testicular cancer and male infertility.

Studies have linked low-level electromagnetic radiation exposure from cellphones to an 8 percent reduction in sperm motility and a 9 percent reduction in sperm viability.32,33 Wi-Fi equipped laptop computers have also been linked to decreased sperm motility and an increase in sperm DNA fragmentation after just four hours of use.34

US Food and Drug Administration Stands Firm on Cellphone Safety
NTP’s final report has now been given to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the two agencies involved in the regulation of cellphones and assessment of health risks. Unfortunately, the FDA appears unwilling to change its stance on cellphone safety.

This is no surprise as the telecommunication industry has far more political lobbying influence than Big Pharma and Big Food combined. To expect anything other than full support for the telecommunication industry would be irrational.

In a November 1 press statement, Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, reaffirmed the agency’s position, saying:35

“The Food and Drug Administration is charged with ensuring cellphones — and any radiation-emitting electronic product — are safe for the public to use. Our scientific expertise and input, along with other health agencies, are used by the [FCC] to set the standards for exposure limits of radiation from cellphones, called radiofrequency energy …

We reviewed the recently finalized research conducted by our colleagues at the [NTP] … [W]e disagree, however, with the conclusions of their final report regarding ‘clear evidence’ of carcinogenic activity in rodents exposed to radiofrequency energy.

In the NTP study, researchers looked at the effects of exposing rodents to extremely high levels of radiofrequency throughout the entire body. This is commonly done in these types of hazard identification studies and means that the study tested levels of radiofrequency energy exposures considerably above the current whole body safety limits for cell phones … [T]hese findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.

NTP hosted a three-day peer review of this study in March, as part of their normal process for issuing scientific reports … which included an assessment of the study methods and data by a panel of 15 peer reviewers to determine the basis of evidence for the final report.

Based on their assessment, the panel voted to upgrade the conclusions from some evidence to clear evidence for malignant heart schwannomas in male rats, and from equivocal (ambiguous) to some evidence for malignant gliomas of the brain and benign tumors of the adrenal gland in male rats. It’s important to note that the vote does not mean new data or findings were reported in the final assessment …

Based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue, the totality of the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits. We believe the existing safety limits for cellphones remain acceptable for protecting the public health.”

NTP Findings Have Already Been Reproduced, and at Power Levels Below FCC Limits
While the FDA insists it “must thoroughly evaluate and take into consideration the totality of the data, and do so within the context of the complete body of evidence rather than drawing conclusions from the results of a single study,” it fails to address the elephant in the room, which is the corroborating evidence published by the Ramazzini Institute just one month after the NTP released its preliminary report in February 2018.

The Ramazzini study36 reproduces and clearly supports the NTP’s findings, showing a clear link between cellphone radiation and Schwann cell tumors (schwannomas)37,38,39 — but at a much lower power level than that used by NTP.

While NTP used radiofrequency (RF) levels comparable to what’s emitted by 2G and 3G cellphones (near-field exposure), Ramazzini simulated exposure to cellphone towers (far-field exposure). Ramazzini’s rats were exposed to 1.8 GHz GSM radiation at electric field strengths of 5, 25 and 50 volts per meter40 for 19 hours a day, starting at birth until the rats died either from age or illness.

To facilitate comparison, the researchers converted their measurements to watts per kilogram of body weight (W/kg), which is what the NTP used. Overall, the radiation dose administered in the Ramazzini study was up to 1,000 times lower than the NTP’s — and below the U.S. limits set by the FCC — yet the results are strikingly similar.

As in the NTP studies, exposed male rats developed statistically higher rates of heart schwannomas than unexposed rats. They also found some evidence, although weaker, that RF exposure increased rates of glial tumors in the brains of female rats.

The fact that the Ramazzini study used a radiation dose well below FCC limits yet still reproduced the NTP’s findings of cancer really weakens the FDA’s claims of safety.

Telling Trend: Silicon Valley Founders Don’t Want Their Own Kids to Use the Technology They Created
The good news is that after more than a decade of mounting warnings, many are finally starting to take cellphone exposure seriously — at least as it pertains to their kids. Adults still struggle to curb their own cellphone and computer use, but at least minimizing exposure to children is a step in the right direction, and in my view a really crucial one.

The New York Times recently reported on the trend among Silicon Valley parents to forbid the use of tablets, computers, cellphones and TVs by their young children, and nannies are increasingly having to sign contracts to that end. New York Times contributor Nellie Bowles writes:41

“Even a little screen time can be so deeply addictive, some parents believe, that it’s best if a child neither touches nor sees any of these glittering rectangles. These particular parents, after all, deeply understand their allure … Enter the Silicon Valley nanny, who each day returns to the time before screens.

‘Usually a day consists of me being allowed to take them to the park, introduce them to card games,’ said Jordin Altmann, 24, a nanny in San Jose, of her charges. ‘Board games are huge. Almost every parent I work for is very strong about the child not having any technical experience at all … In the last two years, it’s become a very big deal’ …

The fear of screens has reached the level of panic in Silicon Valley. Vigilantes now post photos to parenting message boards of possible nannies using cellphones near children. Which is to say, the very people building these glowing hyper-stimulating portals have become increasingly terrified of them …

‘The people who are closest to tech are the most strict about it at home,’ said Lynn Perkins, the CEO of UrbanSitter, which she says has 500,000 sitters in the network throughout the United States. ‘We see that trend with our nannies very clearly.’” "

More at the link: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/11/14/heart-tumors-from-cellphone-radiation.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20181114Z1_B_UCM&et_cid=DM252142&et_rid=470317950