Alaska Supreme Court Upholds Award for RF Radiation Injury Below Thermal Exposure Level

[Jay Sinn]

"Posted by LBAShareThe Alaska Supreme Court (Court) upheld the decision of the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) awarding an AT&T equipment installer 100% disability as a result of his workplace electromagnetic field exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation at levels slightly above the FCC RF limit. The award was based on the psychological and cognitive effects of RF radiation and over-exposure. This decision is significant because the FCC RF limit is designed to keep people from being heated and ignores evidence of other adverse biological effects at much lower levels.The RF radiation exposure level in question was well below the FCC’s recognized level of “thermal” harm. The FCC contends that there are no scientifically established harmful health effects below the thermal threshold. The Board decision agrees with the medical experts who found adverse health effects from this RF radiation exposure which occurred above the FCC safety limit but below the thermal threshold. This decision could have a very significant financial impact on the wireless industry going forward.The Alaska Supreme Court found that:Because substantial evidence supports the board’s findings and because the board’s procedural decisions did not deprive AT&T of due process, we affirm the superior court’s judgment that affirmed the board’s ruling.This precedent-setting case opens the door for any wireless industry or maintenance worker who has been exposed to antenna arrays on the job site that have not been shut off to file disability claims should they suffer similar cognitive and neurological symptoms. US wireless service providers are not required to document compliance with FCC RF safety limits by on-site radiation measurements. Millions of workers occupy worksites on a daily basis where operating antenna arrays are camouflaged and where no workplace RF safety program is carried out.BACKGROUNDAT&T worker John Orchitt suffered a slightly elevated RF exposure while installing new computer equipment at a job site where he believed that the amplifier had been turned off before he and his co-worker entered the job site. When the co-worker’s safety meter registered its highest level of RF exposure the two workers realized that there was a problem. They discovered that the engineer who had provided the specifications for their job had misidentified which amplifier needed to be turned off. Orchitt was exposed to a six gigahertz signal operating at approximately 90 watts.Immediately after the accident, Orchitt experienced headaches and eye pain. Later he reported complaints of “mental slowing.” His neurologist ordered an MRI examination which showed “tiny areas of hypersensitivity in the frontal lobes.” The neurologist referred Orchitt to Dr. Marvin Ziskin, professor of radiology and medical physics at Temple University. Dr. Ziskin is also a member of the IEEE”S International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES). Using information that Orchitt provided, Dr. Ziskin concluded that Orchitt had been overexposed to RF radiation.Orchitt sought treatment at the Brain Injury Association of Alaska. His care provider there issued an opinion stating that he was suffering from a cognitive disorder due to his RF radiation exposure. She provided him with ongoing rehabilitation therapy to address his continuing complaints of mental slowing and mood changes. She also referred him to Dr. Daniel Amen, psychiatrist, who performed a SPECT scan with measures blood flow in the brain to identify functional changes. Dr. Amen concluded that Orchitt had some decreased brain activity as well as depression, and given the history, attributed these neurological impairments to Orchitt’s RF radiation exposure.Numerous subsequent examinations were carried out by the panel of doctors retained by AT&T and also by independent experts retained by the Board, including computer modeling of Orchitt’s RF exposure by Dr. Arthur Guy, professor emeritus of electrical engineering at the University of Washington. Guy has done extensive work in the area of the biological effects of RF radiation. Guy’s comprehensive calculations of the “worst case scenario” produced an exposure that was approximately 9.5% over the FCC’s exposure limits, but “not enough to cause biological effects.”At the conclusion of the hearing process the Board’s decision and order found that Orchitt had been exposed to excessive amounts of RF radiation. The Board decided that Orchitt’s mental deficits and depression were the result of the overexposure. He was awarded temporary total disability and medical benefits.AT&T appealed to the superior court which affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and that AT&T’s due process rights had not been violated.AT&T appealed the superior court’s decision to the Alaska Supreme Court. Along with arguing that it was not accorded its due process, AT&T argued that none of the experts upon which the Board relied had sufficient expertise in RF radiation exposure to be able to connect Orchitt’s overexposure to RF radiation.The Alaska Supreme Court decision cites previous case law and states: The board has the sole power to determine witness credibility and assign weight to medical testimony. When medical experts disagree about the cause of an employee’s injury, we have held that as a general rule “it is undeniably the province of the Board and not this court to decide who to believe and who to distrust.’The Court concluded that: The board did not abuse its discretion in its procedural rulings; it therefore did not deny AT&T due process. Because substantial evidence exists in the record to support the board’s findings, we AFFIRM the superior court judgment that affirmed the board’s rulings.*Source: EMR Policy Institute press release (August 20, 2007)NOTE: The EMR Policy Institute has been and advocate for recognition of non-thermal effects of RF radiation, effects not generally accepted by regulatory agencies or “mainstream” RF safety scientists and engineers. This article is provided for information, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the LBA Group companies. "http://rfblog.lbagroup.com/alaska-supreme-court-upholds-award-for-rf-radiation-injury-below-thermal-exposure-level/If you could establish that EMF causes harm IE radiation sickness in the long term, anyone who would contribute to your EMF, RF exposure could be held to at least account for this. This could include people directly involved with say ...faulty wiring.

[Jay Sinn]

Do Compact Fluorescent Bulbs Cause Diabetes?

We hear of diabetics who are going through their houses and removing the compact fluorescent bulbs, after hearing that a study shows that they exacerbate diabetes. Mike Adams of Natural News calls the double-blind study “the litmus test used in the medical profession to verify that a study is legitimate.” The highly respected Canadian Broadcasting Company’s Geeta Nadkarmi picked up on the story and suddenly it is on facebook. Is there any substance to it?

havas study data

It is apparently due to exposure to “dirty electricity” or “electrosmog”, and is based on a study in 2008 by Magda Havas of Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario. She writes in the study (abstact here, PDF here):

Transient electromagnetic fields (dirty electricity), in the kilohertz range on electrical wiring, may be contributing to elevated blood sugar levels among diabetics and pre- diabetics. By closely following plasma glucose levels in four Type 1 and Type 2 diabetics, we find that they responded directly to the amount of dirty electricity in their environment. In an electromagnetically clean environment, Type 1 diabetics require less insulin and Type 2 diabetics have lower levels of plasma glucose. Dirty electricity, generated by electronic equipment and wireless devices, is ubiquitous in the environment.

Dr. Havas is well known for her views on EMF, or as she calls it “dirty electricity.” Science-based Medicine writes:

She has dedicated her efforts to studying and warning the public about the health risks of electromagnetic radiation for years. She has become the go-to expert for the media, and her name crops up in almost every article on the subject. This is unfortunate, because she appears to be a lone dissenting voice (some might call her a lone crank), who is often put up against the consensus of scientific opinion as if they were two equal experts.

In her study, Dr. Havas writes:

This article presents a paradigm shift in the way we think about diabetes. In addition to Type 1 diabetics, who produce insufficient insulin, and Type 2 diabetics, who are unable to effectively use the insulin they produce, a third type of diabetes may be environmentally exacerbated or induced by exposure to electromagnetic frequencies.Our increasing reliance on electronic devices and wireless technology is contributing to an unprecedented increase in our exposure to a broad range of electromagnetic frequencies, in urban and rural environments and in both developed and developing countries. This energy is generated within the home by computers, plasma televisions, energy efficient lighting and appliances, dimmer switches, cordless phones, and wireless routers, and it can enter the home and work environment from nearby cell phone and broadcast antennas as well as through ground current.

If you believe Dr. Havas, that dirty electricity exacerbates diabetes, you have to do a lot more than pull your compact fluorescents; you have to get rid of you computer, phones and wifi as well. And you have to be convinced that there is some new environmental diabetes that is being called type three. Some are not convinced about the science here; Science Based Medicine writes:

Havas is now talking to the media about “type 3 diabetes” as if it is a proven and accepted entity. She claims that exposure to electromagnetic radiation (including CFLs) can increase blood sugar. Her evidence is one published study, which is nothing more than a case series of four patients. Exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMF) was often estimated (for example, assumed from working in front of a computer or using a treadmill) and not measured. There was no blinding at all to the exposure to EMF and measurement of blood sugars.Case reports and case series are generally considered to be the weakest form of scientific medical evidence. They are one notch above anecdotes. They are used to propose new ideas for further study, but not to form conclusions. In my opinion it is irresponsible to talk to the media about the results of such research as if they demonstrate a new phenomenon. It is premature and misleading.

Thanks to the CBC, people are fixated on the compact fluorescents. However the study that started this meme was not about compact fluorescent bulbs, but about “dirty electricity” in general, which Dr. Havas has been writing about for years and is disputed by many. Taking out compact fluorescents will not make a significant difference in the size of the electrosmog cloud around you. But taking out CFLs will increase pollution, mercury in the environment from burning coal, and cost you money.

by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 09.27.10
source: emfjournal.com

Nice elegant article, I can pick up EMF (dirty electricty) off a CFL bulb. Also there is another measurable bioeffct mentioned here: high blood sugar. This can be measured with a simple over the counter (cheap) blood sugar test.