Thursday, April 5, 2018

Update on Radio Frequency Radiation



Reproduction;



Update on Radio Frequency Radiation
 
New Studies Link Cell Phone Radiation with Cancer
Does cell phone radiation cause cancer? New studies show a correlation in lab rats, but the evidence may not resolve ongoing debates over causality or whether any effects arise in people.
The ionizing radiation given off by sources such as x-ray machines and the sun boosts cancer risk by shredding molecules in the body. But the non-ionizing radio-frequency (RF) radiation that cell phones and other wireless devices emit has just one known biological effect: an ability to heat tissue by exciting its molecules.
Still, evidence advanced by the studies shows prolonged exposure to even very low levels of RF radiation, perhaps by mechanisms other than heating that remain unknown, makes rats uniquely prone to a rare tumor called a schwannoma, which affects a type of neuron (or nerve cell) called a Schwann cell.
The studies are notable for their sizes. Researchers at the National Toxicology Program, a federal interagency group under the National Institutes of Health, tested 3,000 rats and mice of both sexes for two years—the largest investigation of RF radiation and cancer in rodents ever undertaken in the U.S. European investigators at the Ramazzini Institute in Italy were similarly ambitious; in their recent study they investigated RF effects in nearly 2,500 rats from the fetal stage until death.
Also noteworthy is that the studies evaluated radiation exposures in different ways. The NTP looked at “near-field” exposures, which approximate how people are dosed while using cell phones. Ramazzini researchers looked at “far-field” exposures, which approximate the wireless RF radiation that bombards us from sources all around us, including wireless devices such as tablet and laptop computers. Yet they generated comparable results: Male rats in both studies (but not mice or female animals) developed schwannomas of the heart at statistically higher rates than control animals that were not exposed.
Taken together, the findings “confirm that RF radiation exposure has biological effects” in rats, some of them “relevant to carcinogenesis,” says Jon Samet, a professor of preventive medicine and dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, who did not participate in either study. Samet, however, cautioned the jury is still out as to whether wireless technology is similarly risky to people. Indeed, heart schwannomas are exceedingly rare in humans; only a handful of cases have ever been documented in the medical literature.
When turned on, cell phones and other wireless devices emit EF radiation continually, even if they are not being actively used, because they are always communicating with cell towers. The dose intensity tails off with increasing distance from the body, and reaches a maximum when the devices are used next to the head during phone calls or in front of the body during texting or tweeting.
Launched at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s request 10 years ago, the NTP study dosed rats and mice of both sexes with RF radiation at either 1.5, 3 or 6 watts of radiation per kilogram of body weight, or W/kg. The lowest dose is about the same as the Federal Communications Commission’s limit for public exposure from cell phones, which is 1.6 watts W/kg. The animals were exposed nine hours a day for two years (about the average life span for a rat), and the exposures were cranked up steadily as the animals grew, so the absorbed doses per unit body weight remained constant over time.
Initially leaked in 2016, results from that $25-million study provided the most compelling evidence yet that RF energy may be linked to cancer in lab rodents. The strongest finding connected RF with heart schwannomas in male rats, but the researchers also reported elevated rates of lymphoma as well as cancers affecting the prostate, skin, lung, liver and brain in the exposed animals. Rates for those cancers increased as the doses got higher but the evidence linking them with cell phone radiation specifically was weak by comparison, and the researchers could not rule out that they might have increased for reasons other than RF exposure. Paradoxically, the radiation-treated animals also lived longer than the nonexposed controls. The study results were reviewed by a panel of outside experts during a three-day meeting that ended on March 28. They concluded there was "clear evidence" linking RF radiation with heart schwannomas and "some evidence" linking it to gliomas of the brain. It is now up to the NTP to either accept or reject the reviewer's conclusions. A final report is expected within several months.
Limited to rats only, the Ramazzini study tested three doses expressed as the amount of radiation striking the animal’s bodies: either 5, 25 or 50 volts per meter. The exposure measures therefore differed from the absorbed doses calculated during the NTP study. But the Ramazzini scientists also converted their measures to W/kg, to show how the doses compared with RF limits for cell phones and cell towers set by the FCC and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection; they ranged down to a 1,000 times lower. The exposures began when the rats were fetuses and continued for 19 hours a day until the animals died from natural causes.
As in the NTP study, Ramazzini investigators detected statistically elevated rates of heart schwannomas in male rats at the highest dose. They also had weaker findings linking RF exposure to cancer of glial cells in the brain, which were limited to females. Ronald Melnick, a retired NTP toxicologist who designed the NTP study, says a measure of consistency between the two studies is important, because “reproducibility in science increases our confidence in the observed results.”
Just why Schwann and glial cells appear to be targets of cell phone radiation is not clear. David Carpenter, a physician who directs the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, S.U.N.Y., explained the purpose of these cells is to insulate nerve fibers throughout the body. These are electrical systems, so that may be some sort of factor, he wrote in an e-mail. “But this is only speculation.”
A few epidemiology studies have reported higher rates of tumors inside the skull among people who use cell phones heavily for 10 years or more. Of particular concern are benign Schwann cell tumors called acoustic neuromas, which affect nerve cells connecting the inner ear with structures inside the brain. These growths can in some instances progress to malignant cancer with time. But other studies have found no evidence of acoustic neuromas or brain tumors in heavy cell phone users.
Samet adds a major challenge now would be to draw a biologically relevant connection between acoustic neuromas and other glial tumors in the brains of humans with Schwann tumors in rat hearts. “The mechanism is uncertain,” he says. “There’s a lot of information we still need to fill in.”
Since 2011 RF radiation has been classified as a Group 2B “possible” human carcinogen by the International Agency on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organization. Based on the new animal findings, and limited epidemiological evidence linking heavy and prolonged cell phone use with brain gliomas in humans, Fiorella Belpoggi, director of research at the Ramazzini Institute and the study’s lead author, says IARC should consider changing the RF radiation designation to a “probable” human carcinogen. Even if the hazard is low, billions of people are exposed, she says, alluding to the estimated number of wireless subscriptions worldwide. VĂ©ronique Terrasse, an IARC spokesperson, says a reevaluation may occur after the NTP delivers its final report.
Stephen Chanock, who directs the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics at the National Cancer Institute, remains skeptical, however. Cancer monitoring by the institute and other organizations has yet to show increasing numbers of brain tumors in the general population, he says. Tracking of benign brain tumors, such as acoustic neuromas, was initiated in 2004 by investigators at the institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program, which monitors and publishes statistics on cancer incidence rates. According to Chanock’s spokesperson, the acoustic neuroma data “haven’t accumulated to the point that we can say something meaningful about them.”
Asked if brain cancer’s long latency might explain why higher rates in the population have not appeared yet, Chanock says, “Cell phones have been around a long time. We are by no means dismissing the evidence, and the Ramazzini study raises interesting questions. But it has to be factored in with other reports, and this is still work in progress.”
Epidemiology studies investigating cell phone use patterns with human cancer risk have produced inconsistent results. Some studies enrolled people who already had tumors with suspected links to RF radiation, such as gliomas, acoustic neuromas and salivary gland tumors. Researchers compared the self-reported cell phone use habits of the cancer patients with those of other people who did not have the same diseases. Other studies enrolled people while they were still healthy, and then followed them over time to see if new cancer diagnoses tracked with how they used cell phones. All the epidemiology studies, however, have troubling limitations, including that enrolled subjects often do not report their cell phone use habits accurately on questionnaires.
In a February 2 statement, Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote that despite the NTP study’s results, the combined evidence on RF exposure and human cancer—which by now amounts to hundreds of studies—has “given us confidence that the current safety limits for cell phone radiation remain acceptable for protecting the public health.” Chonock says that for him, evidence from the Ramazzini study does not alter that conclusion. “We continue to agree with the FDA statement,” he says.

This is for Quorora writer to read;
This should be read in conjunction with the experimental evidence of brain tumour Schwanoma in rats and mice!

Radiation From Cell Phones and WiFi Are Making People Sick-
Are We All at Risk?
We are now exposed to electromagnetic radio frequencies 24 hours a day. Welcome to the largest human experiment ever.
December 2, 2011
Consider this story:
It's January 1990, during the pioneer build-out of mobile phone service. A cell tower goes up 800 feet from the house of Alison Rall, in Mansfield, Ohio, where she and her husband run a 160-acre dairy farm. The first thing the Rall family notices is that the ducks on their land lay eggs that don't hatch. That spring there are no ducklings.
By the fall of 1990, the cattle herd that pastures near the tower is sick. The animals are thin, their ribs are showing, their coats growing rough, and their behavior is weird -- they're agitated, nervous.

Soon the cows are miscarrying, and so are the goats.
Many of the animals that gestate are born deformed. There are goats with webbed necks, goats with front legs shorter than their rear legs. One calf in the womb has a tumor the size of a basketball, another carries a tumor three feet in diameter, big enough that he won't pass through the birth canal. 
Rall and the local veterinarian finally cut open the mother to get the creature out alive. The vet records the nightmare in her log: "I've never seen anything like this in my entire practice... All of [this] I feel was a result of the cellular tower."

Within six months, Rall's three young children begin suffering bizarre skin rashes, raised red "hot spots." The kids are hit with waves of hyperactivity; the youngest child sometimes spins in circles, whirling madly. The girls lose hair. Rall is soon pregnant with a fourth child, but she can't gain weight. Her son is born with birth defects -- brittle bones, neurological problems -- that fit no specific syndrome. Her other children, conceived prior to the arrival of the tower, had been born healthy.

Desperate to understand what is happening to her family and her farm, Rall contacts the
Environmental Protection Agency. She ends up talking to an EPA scientist named Carl Blackman, an expert on the biological effects of radiation from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) -- the kind of radiofrequency EMFs (RF-EMFs) by which all wireless technology operates, including not just cell towers and cell phones but wi-fi hubs and wi-fi-capable computers, "smart" utility meters, and even cordless home phones. "With my government cap on, I'm supposed to tell you you're perfectly safe," Blackman tells her. 
"With my civilian cap on, I have to tell you to consider leaving."

Blackman's warning casts a pall on the family. When Rall contacts the cell phone company operating the tower, they tell her there is "no possibility whatsoever" that the tower is the source of her ills. "You're probably in the safest place in America," the company representative tells her.

The Ralls abandoned the farm on Christmas Day of 1992 and never
re-sold it, unwilling to subject others to the horrors they had experienced. Within weeks of fleeing to land they owned in Michigan, the children recovered their health, and so did the herd.

Not a single one of the half-dozen scientists I spoke to could explain what had happened on the Rall farm. Why the sickened animals? Why the skin rashes, the hyperactivity? Why the birth defects? If the radiofrequency radiation from the cell tower was the cause, then what was the mechanism? 

And why today, with millions of cell towers dotting the planet and billions of cell phones placed next to billions of heads every day, aren't we all getting sick?

In fact, the great majority of us appear to be just fine. We all live in range of cell towers now, and we are all wireless operators. More than wireless operators, we're nuts about the technology. Who doesn't keep at their side at all times the electro-plastic appendage for the suckling of information?

The mobile phone as a technology was developed in the
1970s, commercialized in the mid-80s, miniaturized in the '90s. When the first mobile phone companies launched in the United Kingdom in 1985, the expectation was that perhaps 10,000 phones would sell. Worldwide shipments of mobile phones topped the one billion mark in 2006. As of October 2010 there were 5.2 billion cell phones operating on the planet. "Penetration," in the marketing-speak of the companies, often tops 100 percent in many countries, meaning there is more than one connection per person. The mobile phone in its various manifestations -- the iPhone, the Android, the Blackberry -- has been called the "most prolific consumer device" ever proffered.
I don't have an Internet connection at my home in Brooklyn, and, like a dinosaur, I still keep a landline. But if I stand on my roof, I see a hundred feet away, attached to the bricks of the neighboring parking garage, a panel of cell phone antennae -- pointed straight at me. They produce wonderful reception on my cell phone. My neighbors in the apartment below have a wireless fidelity connection -- better known as wi-fi -- which I tap into when I have to argue with magazine editors. This is very convenient. I use it. I abuse it.

Yet even though I have, in a fashion, opted out, here I am, on a rooftop in Brooklyn, standing bathed in the radiation from the cell phone panels on the parking garage next door. I am also bathed in the radiation from the neighbors' wi-fi downstairs. The waves are everywhere, from public libraries to Amtrak trains to restaurants and bars and even public squares like Zuccotti Park in downtown Manhattan, where the Wall Street occupiers relentlessly tweet.

We now live in a wireless-saturated normality that has never existed in the history of the human race.

It is unprecedented because of the complexity of the modulated frequencies that carry the increasingly complex information we transmit on our cell phones, smart phones and wi-fi systems. These EMFs are largely untested in their effects on human beings. Swedish neuroscientist Olle Johansson, who teaches at the world-renowned Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, tells me the mass saturation in electromagnetic fields raises terrible questions. Humanity, he says, has embarked on the equivalent of "the largest full-scale experiment ever. What happens when, 24 hours around the clock, we allow ourselves and our children to be whole-body-irradiated by new, man-made electromagnetic fields for the entirety of our lives?"

We have a few answers. Last May, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, a branch of the World Health Organization), in Lyon, France, issued a statement that the electromagnetic frequencies from cell phones would henceforth be classified as "possibly carcinogenic to humans." The determination was based in part on data from a 13-country study, called Interphone, which reported in 2008 that after a decade of cell phone use, the risk of getting a brain tumor -- specifically on the side of the head where the phone is placed -- goes up as much as 40 percent for adults. Israeli researchers, using study methods similar to the Interphone investigation, have found that heavy cell phone users were more likely to suffer malignant tumors of the salivary gland in the cheek, while an independent study by scientists in Sweden concluded that people who started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were five times as likely to develop a brain tumor. According to a study published in the International Journal of Cancer Prevention, people living for more than a decade within 350 meters of a cell phone tower experience a four-fold increase in cancer rates.

The IARC decision followed in the wake of multiple warnings, mostly from European regulators, about the possible health risks of RF-EMFs. In September 2007, Europe's top environmental watchdog, the EU's European Environment Agency, suggested that the mass unregulated exposure of human beings to widespread radiofrequency radiation "could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking and lead in petrol." That same year, Germany's environmental ministry singled out the dangers of RF-EMFs used in wi-fi systems, noting that people should keep wi-fi exposure "as low as possible" and instead choose "conventional wired connections." In 2008, France issued a generalized national cell phone health warning against excessive cell phone use, and then, a year later, announced a ban on cell phone advertising for children under the age of 12.
In 2009, following a meeting in the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre, more than 50 concerned scientists from 16 countries -- public health officials, biologists, neuroscientists, medical doctors -- signed what became known as the Porto Alegre Resolution. The signatories described it as an "urgent call" for more research based on "the body of evidence that indicates that exposure to electromagnetic fields interferes with basic human biology."

That evidence is mounting. "Radiofrequency radiation has a number of biological effects which can be reproducibly found in animals and cellular systems," says David O. Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the State University of New York (SUNY). "We really cannot say for certain what the adverse effects are in humans," Carpenter tells me. "But the indications are that there may be -- and I use the words 'may be' -- very serious effects in humans." He notes that in exposure tests with animal and human cells, RF-EMF radiation causes genes to be activated. "We also know that RF-EMF causes generation of free radicals, increases production of things called heat shock proteins, and alters calcium ion regulation. These are all common mechanisms behind many kinds of tissue damage."

Double-strand breaks in DNA -- one of the undisputed causes of cancer -- have been reported in similar tests with animal cells. Swedish neuro-oncologist Leif Salford, chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at Lund University, has found that cell phone radiation damages neurons in rats, particularly those cells associated with memory and learning. The damage occurred after an exposure of just two hours. Salford also found that cell phone EMFs cause holes to appear in the barrier between the circulatory system and the brain in rats. Punching holes in the blood-brain-barrier is not a good thing. It allows toxic molecules from the blood to leach into the ultra-stable environment of the brain. One of the potential outcomes, Salford notes, is dementia.

Other effects from cell phone radiofrequencies have been reported using human subjects. At Loughborough University in England, sleep specialists in 2008 found that after 30 minutes of cell phone use, their subjects required twice the time to fall asleep as they did when the phone was avoided before bedtime. EEGs (electroencephalograms) showed a disturbance of the brain waves that regulate sleep. Neuroscientists at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia discovered in 2009 a "power boost" in brain waves when volunteers were exposed to cell phone radiofrequencies. Researchers strapped Nokia phones to their subjects' heads, then turned the phones on and off. On: brain went into defense mode. Off: brain settled. The brain, one of the lead researchers speculated, was "concentrating to overcome the electrical interference."

Yet for all this, there is no scientific consensus on the risks of RF-EMFs to human beings.

The major public-health watchdogs, in the US and worldwide, have dismissed concerns about it. "Current evidence," the World Health Organization (WHO) says, "does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields." (The WHO thus contradicts the findings of one of its own research units.) The US Federal Communications Commission has made similar statements. The American Cancer Society reports that "most studies published so far have not found a link between cell phone use and the development of tumors." The cell phone industry's lobbying organization, CTIA-The Wireless Association, assures the public that cell phone radiation is safe, citing studies -- many of them funded by the telecom industry -- that show no risk.
Published meta-reviews of hundreds of such studies suggest that industry funding tends to skew results. According to a survey by Henry Lai, a research professor at University of Washington, only 28 percent of studies funded by the wireless industry showed some type of biological effect from cell phone radiation. Meanwhile, independently funded studies produce an altogether different set of data: 67 percent of those studies showed a bioeffect. The Safe Wireless Initiative, a research group in Washington, DC that has since closed down, unpacked the data in hundreds of studies on wireless health risks, arraying them in terms of funding source. "Our data show that mobile phone industry funded/influenced work is six times more likely to find 'no problem' than independently funded work," the group noted. "The industry thus has significantly contaminated the scientific evidence pool."

The evidence about the long-term public health risks of exposure to RF-EMFs may be contradictory. Yet it is clear that some people are getting sick when heavily exposed to the new radiofrequencies. And we are not listening to their complaints.

Take the story of Michele Hertz. When a local utility company installed a wireless digital meter -- better known as a "smart" meter -- on her house in upstate New York in the summer of 2009, Hertz thought little of it. Then she began to feel odd. She was a practiced sculptor, but now she could not sculpt. "I couldn't concentrate, I couldn't sleep, I couldn't even finish sentences," she told me. Hertz experienced "incredible memory loss," and, at the age of 51, feared she had come down with Alzheimer's.

One night during a snowstorm in 2010 her house lost power, and when it came back on her head exploded with a ringing sound -- "a terrible piercing." A buzzing in her head persisted. She took to sleeping on the floor of her kitchen that winter, where the refrigerator drowned out the keening. There were other symptoms: headaches and nausea and dizziness, persistent and always worsening. "Sometimes I'd wake up with my heart pounding uncontrollably," she told me. "I thought I would have a heart attack. I had nightmares that people were killing me."

Roughly one year after the installation of the wireless meters, with the help of an electrician, Hertz thought she had figured out the source of the trouble: It had to be something electrical in the house. On a hunch, she told the utility company, Con Edison of New York, to remove the wireless meter. She told them: "I will die if you do not install an analog meter." Within days, the worst symptoms disappeared. "People look at me like I'm crazy when I talk about this," Hertz says.

Her exposure to the meters has super-sensitized Hertz to all kinds of other EMF sources. "The smart meters threw me over the electronic edge," she says. A cell phone switched on in the same room now gives her a headache. Stepping into a house with wi-fi is intolerable. Passing a cell tower on the street hurts. "Sometimes if the radiation is very strong my fingers curl up," she says. "I can now hear cell phones ringing on silent. Life," she says, "has dramatically changed."

Hertz soon discovered there were other people like her: "Electrosensitives," they call themselves. To be sure, they comprise a tortured minority, often misunderstood and isolated. They share their stories at online forums like Smartmeters.org, the EMF Safety Network, and the Electrosensitive Society. "Some are getting sick from cell phones, some from smart meters, some from cell towers," Hertz tells me. "Some can no longer work and have had to flee their homes. Some are losing their eyesight, some can't stop shaking, most cannot sleep."
In recent years, I've gotten to know dozens of electrosensitives. In Santa Fe, New Mexico, I met a woman who had taken to wearing an aluminum foil hat. (This works -- wrap a cell phone in foil and it will kill the signal.) I met a former world record-holding marathoner, a 54-year-old woman who had lived out of her car for eight years before settling down at a house ringed by mountains that she said protected the place from cell frequencies. I met people who said they no longer wanted to live because of their condition. Many of the people I talked to were accomplished professionals -- writers, television producers, entrepreneurs. I met a scientist from Los Alamos National Laboratories named Bill Bruno whose employer had tried to fire him after he asked for protection from EMFs at the lab. I met a local librarian named Rebekah Azen who quit her job after being sickened by a newly installed wi-fi system at the library. I met a brilliant activist named Arthur Firstenberg, who had for several years published a newsletter, "No Place to Hide," but who was now homeless, living out of the back of his car, sleeping in wilderness outside the city where he could escape the signals.

In New York City, I got to know a longtime member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) who said he was electrosensitive. I'll call him Jake, because he is embarrassed by his condition and he doesn't want to jeopardize his job or his membership in the IEEE (which happens to have for its purpose the promulgation of electrical technology, including cell phones). Jake told me how one day, a few years ago, he started to get sick whenever he went into the bedroom of his apartment to sleep. He had headaches, suffered fatigue and nausea, nightsweats and heart palpitations, had blurred vision and difficulty breathing and was blasted by a ringing in the ears -- the typical symptoms of the electrosensitive. He discovered that his neighbor in the apartment building kept a wi-fi transmitter next door, on the other side of the wall to his bedroom. When Jake asked the neighbor to shut it down, his symptoms disappeared.

The government of Sweden reports that the disorder known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity, or EHS, afflicts an estimated 3 percent of the population. A study by the California Department of Health found that, based on self-reports, as many as 770,000 Californians, or 3 percent of the state's population, would ascribe some form of illness to EMFs. A study in Switzerland recently found a 5 percent prevalence of electrosensitivity. In Germany, there is reportedly a 6 percent prevalence. Even the former prime minister of Norway, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, until 2003 the director general of the World Health Organization, has admitted that she suffers headaches and "strong discomfort" when exposed to cell phones. "My hypersensitivity," she told a Norwegian newspaper in 2002, "has gone so far that I react to mobile phones closer to me than about four meters." She added in the same interview: "People have been in my office with their mobile hidden in their pocket or bag. Without knowing if it was on or off, we have tested my reactions. I have always reacted when the phone has been on -- never when it's off."

Yet the World Health Organization -- the same agency that Brundtland once headed -- reports "there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure." WHO's findings are corroborated by a 2008 study at the University of Bern in Switzerland which found "no evidence that EHS individuals could detect [the] presence or absence" of frequencies that allegedly make them sick. A study conducted in 2006 at the Mobile Phone Research Unit at King's College in London came to a similar conclusion. "No evidence was found to indicate that people with self-reported sensitivity to mobile phone signals are able to detect such signals or that they react to them with increased symptom severity," the report said. "As sham exposure was sufficient to trigger severe symptoms in some participants, psychological factors may have an important role in causing this condition." The King's College researchers in 2010 concluded it was a "medically unexplained illness."
"The scientific data so far just doesn't help the electrosensitives," says Louis Slesin, editor and publisher of Microwave News, a newsletter and website that covers the potential impacts of RF-EMFs. "The design of some of these studies, however, is questionable." He adds: "Frankly, I'd be surprised if the condition did not exist. We're electromagnetic beings. You wouldn't have a thought in your head without electromagnetic signals. There is electrical signaling going on in your body all the time, and the idea that external electromagnetic fields can't affect us just doesn't make sense. We're biological and chemical beings too, and we know that we can develop allergies to certain biological and chemical compounds. Why wouldn't we also find there are allergies to EM fields? Shouldn't every chemical be tested for its effects on human beings? Well, the same could be said for each frequency of RF radiation."

Dr. David Carpenter of SUNY, who has also looked into electrosensitivity, tells me he's "not totally convinced that electrosensitivity is real." Still, he says, "there are just too many people with reports of illness when chronically near to EMF devices, with their symptoms being relieved when they are away from them. Like multiple chemical sensitivity and Gulf War Syndrome, there is something here, but we just don't understand it all yet."

Science reporter B. Blake Levitt, author of Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer's Guide to the Issues, says the studies she has reviewed on EHS are "contradictory and nowhere near definitive." Flaws in test design stand out, she says. Many with EHS may be simply "too sensitized," she believes, to endure research exposure protocols, possibly skewing results from the start by inadvertently studying a less sensitive group. Levitt recently compiled some of the most damning studies of the health effects from cell towers in a report for the International Commission on Electromagnetic Safety in Italy. "Some populations are reacting poorly when living or working within 1,500 feet of a cell tower," Levitt tells me. Several studies she cited found an increase in headaches, rashes, tremors, sleep disturbances, dizziness, concentration problems, and memory changes.

"EHS may be one of those problems that can never be well defined -- we may just have to believe what people report," Levitt says. "And people are reporting these symptoms all over the globe now when new technologies are introduced or infrastructure like cell towers go into neighborhoods. It's not likely a transcultural mass hallucination. The immune system is an exquisite warning mechanism. These are our canaries in the coal mine."

Swedish neuroscientist Olle Johansson was one of the first researchers to take the claims of electrosensitivity seriously. He found, for example, that persons with EHS had changes in skin mast cells -- markers of allergic reaction -- when exposed to specific EM fields. Other studies have found that radiofrequency EMFs can increase serum histamine levels -- the hallmark of an allergic reaction. Johansson has hypothesized that electrosensitivity arises exactly as any common allergy would arise -- due to excessive exposure, as the immune system fails. And just as only some people develop allergies to cats or pollen or dust, only some of us fall prey to EM fields. Johansson admits that his hypothesis has yet to be proven in laboratory study.

One afternoon not long ago, a nurse named Maria Gonzalez, who lives in Queens, New York, took me to see the cell phone masts that irradiate her daughter's school. The masts were the usual flat-paneled, alien-looking things nested together, festooned with wires, high on a rooftop across from Public School 122 in Astoria. They emitted a fine signal -- five bars on my phone. The operator of the masts, Sprint-Nextel, had built a wall of fake brick to hide them from view, but Maria was unimpressed with the subterfuge. She was terrified of the masts. When, in 2005, the panels went up, soon to be turned on, she was working at the intensive care unit at St. Vincent's Hospital. She'd heard bizarre stories about cell phones from her cancer-ward colleagues. Some of the doctors at St. Vincent's told her they had doubts about the safety of their own cellphones and pagers. This was disturbing enough. She went online, culling studies. When she read a report published in 2002 about children in Spain who developed leukemia shortly after a cell phone tower was erected next to their school, she went into a quiet panic.
Sprint-Nextel was unsympathetic when she telephoned the company in the summer of 2005 to express her concerns. The company granted her a single meeting that autumn, with a Sprint-Nextel technician, an attorney, and a self-described "radiation expert" under contract with the company. "They kept saying, 'we're one hundred percent sure the antennas are safe,'" Maria told me as we stared at the masts. "'One hundred percent sure! These are children! We would never hurt children.'" She called the office of Hillary Clinton and pestered the senator once a week for six months -- but got nowhere. A year later, Gonzalez sued the US government, charging that the Federal Communications Commission had failed to fully evaluate the risks from cell phone frequencies. The suit was thrown out. The judge concluded that if regulators for the government said the radiation was safe, then it was safe. The message, as Gonzalez puts it, was that she was "crazy ... and making a big to-do about nothing."

I'd venture, rather, that she was applying a commonsense principle in environmental science: the precautionary principle, which states that when an action or policy -- or technology -- cannot be proven with certainty to be safe, then it should be assumed to be harmful. In a society thrilled with the magic of digital wireless, we have junked this principle. And we try to dismiss as fools those who uphold it -- people like Gonzalez. We have accepted without question that we will have wi-fi hotspots in our homes, and at libraries, and in cafes and bookstores; that we will have wireless alarm systems and wireless baby monitors and wireless utility meters and wireless video games that children play; that we will carry on our persons wireless iPads and iPods and smart phones. We are mesmerized by the efficiency and convenience of the infotainment appendage, the words and sounds and pictures it carries. We are, in other words, thoughtless in our embrace of the technology.

Because of our thoughtlessness, we have not demanded to know the full consequences of this technology. Perhaps the gadgets are slowly killing us -- we do not know. Perhaps they are perfectly safe -- we do not know. Perhaps they are making us sick in ways we barely understand -- we do not know. What we do know, without a doubt, is that the electromagnetic fields are all around us, and that to live in modern civilization implies always and everywhere that we cannot escape their touch.


1. Training my Virtual Medical Secretaries (V.M.A)
I love the idea of using a Virtual Medical Assistant (V.M.A for short.).
Thank god I am in my twilight years and listening to birds singing is one of my natural pastimes and trying to figure out which bird is calling and which bird is answering is not an easy task.
But the idea of voice activated cellphone is a welcome addition to an armory of medically offensive gadgets that are springing by numbers.
Dictaphone was in my armory when working abroad. I could do a very good dictation without punctuation marks and my secretaries never bothered to phone back and ask me for any clarifications. That was a very positive effort on my part and my superiors very much like my approach except a few, since I did not try to show off any accent but pure and simple Queen's English, I dictated.
Mind you I was taking to a voice machine and not a person.
The idiot, the Dictaphone does not have any emotions and only records my voice.
I tell them that putting fullstops, commas, semicolons and apostrophes are her job and not mine.
When things were difficult unlike S.M.S. I wrote down the specific stuff clearly to save their time.
I hope and prey that smart-phone becoming intelligent and telling me back you are creepy and some sort of a sob.
Advantages.
1. After some time smart-phone will instantly know what you are trying to do.
2. Unlike human secretaries who make the same mistakes over over again smart-phone would never repeat mistakes.
3. One can take home the Virtual Secretary unlike the human with bizarre consequence at home boundary.
4. One can switch off the VMA with just a push of a button unlike a jabbering soul with money / home problems.
5. At worse I can thrash it on the floor.
I have to think of the 6 to 10 as and when my lateral thinking make me to do so.
For me it is a smart innervation.
6. If I see a guy/girl I hate (on my war-path) to meet or talk or exchange any greetings I can pretend I am very busy talking to it (of cause switched off and with so many adversaries including politicians I do not want to run dry the battery life) and escape harmlessly. I see this happening evry day of my life since i do not still carry a smartphone.

We have a few answers. Last May, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, a branch of the World Health Organization), in Lyon, France, issued a statement that the electromagnetic frequencies from cell phones would henceforth be classified as "possibly carcinogenic to humans." The determination was based in part on data from a 13-country study, called Interphone, which reported in 2008 that after a decade of cell phone use, the risk of getting a brain tumor -- specifically on the side of the head where the phone is placed -- goes up as much as 40 percent for adults. Israeli researchers, using study methods similar to the Interphone investigation, have found that heavy cell phone users were more likely to suffer malignant tumors of the salivary gland in the cheek, while an independent study by scientists in Sweden concluded that people who started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were five times as likely to develop a brain tumor. According to a study published in the International Journal of Cancer Prevention, people living for more than a decade within 350 meters of a cell phone tower experience a four-fold increase in cancer rates.


2. Training my Medical Secretaries

Oh, for the Good Old Days of Rude Cellphone Gabbers
By NICK WINGFIELD
Published: December 2, 2011


Is talking to a phone the same as talking on it?
Enlarge This Image
Illustration by The New York Times


Jimmy Wong, of Los Angeles, called an overheard conversation with Siri on an iPhone “creepy.”
Readers’ Comments

The sound of someone gabbing on a cellphone is part of the soundtrack of daily life, and most of us have learned when to be quiet — no talking in “quiet cars” on trains, for example.

But the etiquette of talking to a phone — more precisely, to a “virtual assistant” like Apple’s Siri, in the new iPhone 4S — has not yet evolved. And eavesdroppers are becoming annoyed.

In part, that is because conversations with machines have a robotic, unsettling quality. Then there is the matter of punctuation. If you want it, you have to say it.

“How is he doing question mark how are you doing question mark,” Jeremy Littau of Bethlehem, Pa., found himself telling his new iPhone recently as he walked down the street, dictating a text message to his wife, who was home with their newborn. The machine spoke to him in Siri’s synthesized female voice.

Passers-by gawked. “It’s not normal human behavior to have people having a conversation with a phone on the street,” concluded Mr. Littau, 36, an assistant professor of journalism and communication at Lehigh University.

The technology behind voice-activated mobile phones has been around for a few years — allowing people to order their phones around like digital factotums, commanding them to dictate text messages, jot down appointments on their calendars and search for nearby sushi restaurants. Apple, though, has taken it to another level with Siri.

“Happy birthday smiley face,” was what Dani Klein heard a man say to his phone on the Long Island Rail Road, using the command to insert a grinning emotion into a message.

“It sounded ridiculous,” said Mr. Klein, 28, who works in social media marketing.

Talking to your phone is so new that there are no official rules yet on, say, public transportation systems.

Cliff Cole, a spokesman for Amtrak, said the train line’s quiet-car policy applied to any use of voice with cellphones, though it explicitly bans only “phone calls,” not banter with a virtual assistant. “We may have to adjust the language if it becomes a problem,” Mr. Cole said.

Voice-activated technology in smartphones first appeared a few years ago when mobile phones running Google’s Android operating system and other software began offering basic voice commands to do Web searches and other tasks.
Apple’s Siri, introduced this fall, is a more sophisticated iteration of the technology; it responds to natural-sounding phrases like, “What’s the weather looking like?” and “Wake me up at 8 a.m.”

Apple gave Siri a dash of personality, too, reinforcing the impression that the iPhone’s users were actually talking to someone. Ask Siri for the meaning of life, and it responds, “I find it odd you would ask this of an inanimate object.”

Technology executives say voice technologies are here to stay if only because they can help cellphone users be more productive.

“I don’t think the keyboard is going to go away, but it’s going to be less used,” said Martin Cooper, who developed the first portable cellular phone while at Motorola in the 1970s.

Another irritant in listening to people talk to their phones is the awareness that most everything you can do with voice commands can also be done silently. Billy Brooks, 43, was standing in line at the service department of a car dealership in Los Angeles recently, when a woman broke the silence of the room by dictating a text message into her iPhone.

“You’re unnecessarily annoying others at that point by not just typing out your message,” said Mr. Brooks, a visual effects artist in the film industry, adding that the woman’s behavior was “just ridiculous and kind of sad.”

James E. Katz, director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers, said people who use their voices to control their phones are creating an inconvenience for others — noise — rather than coping with an inconvenience for themselves — the discomfort of having to type slowly on a cramped cellphone keyboard. Mr. Katz compared the behavior with that of someone who leaves a car’s engine running while parked, creating noise and fumes for people surrounding them.

While Apple has tried to enable natural-sounding conversations with Siri, they are often anything but. Nirav Tolia, an Internet entrepreneur, was riding a crowded elevator down from his office in San Francisco recently when a man tried to use Siri to find a new location of a cafe, Coffee Bar. The phone gave him listings for other coffee houses — the wrong ones — forcing him to repeat the search several times.

“Just say ‘Starbucks,’ dude,” another passenger said, pushing past the Coffee Bar-seeker when the elevator reached the ground floor.

When talking to their cellphones, people sometimes start sounding like machines themselves. Jimmy Wong, 24, was at an after-hours diner with friends in Los Angeles recently when they found themselves next to a man ordering Siri to write memos and dictate e-mails. They found the man’s conversation with his phone “creepy,” without any of the natural pauses and voice inflections that occur in a discussion between two people.

“It was very robotic,” he said.
Yet the group could not stop eavesdropping.

People who study the behavior of cellphone users believe the awkwardness of hearing people in hotels, airports and cafes treating their phones like administrative assistants will simply fade over time.

“We’ll see an evolution of that initial irritation with it, to a New Yorker cartoon making fun of it, and then after a while it will largely be accepted by most people,” said Mr. Katz from Rutgers.

But, he predicted, “there will be a small minority of traditionalists who yearn for the good old days when people just texted in public.”

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Thunderbolt

Thunderbolt

Why do you come to me
When there is a thunder storm
And hide under my bed
Not sleeping like
You usually do?


Why do you come to me
When the ugly sounds
Of the fire crackers
Litter the atmosphere
In the new year?


Don't tell me you fear
The noise more
Than the enemy
That come from behind
With the dagger in hand


My dear
It is only a big sound
Like when one taps
On an empty pot
But
It is the lightening that is
Deadly and fearful
And those who sound big
Are not as big as they appear to be


But when the Ceylon Krait
Landed on my shoulder
You were the first
To charge fearlessly
Like a true friend
But
Didn't you realize that
It was a big danger
Lying ahead


Don't you know
One of my favorite dogs
Before you
Died
Without any mercy
With a simple bite of a snake
When I was away
Doing night duties
In far away land


I could not have saved him
From the danger
By leaving him
Unattended
Having being
A selfish soul
Those days


But I am happy that
I saved you
For saving me
In the first instance


You are a true friend
In need
And I will
Call you hereafter
My thunderbolt
Indeed

17th October 2006

 

My Night Terror
It was many moons ago
I was just a kid
Barely seven years old
The war broke in

Yes, we were moved
From here to there
There wasn't a place
To hide
Except the trenches

I had four sisters
Two were taken for cadres
And rest were sent to
A far away place
Over and beyond the sea
I never saw them again

I was smuggled out
And grew up
In a Foreign Land

I grew up fast,
Very successful in
My academy
Met lot of
Guys and gals

One day,
I met a beautiful
Blue eyed girl
They used to say
Irish blue eyes

We fell in love
It was natural
Whenever I tried to
Kiss her
In her blue eyes,
Yes I saw
My Sisters eyes
In red, green
And dark shades

I could not
Bear it
We broke up
As friends
Promising never to
Kiss again!

Many moons passed
I met a gal
Much older
We were in bed
In no time

But the moment
We were under the blanket
I had a night terrors
"Crawling in,
Dark trenches
Bombs falling
Near by"
It was horrible

She had gone
Secretly
In the morning
Leaving a note
Please take treatment
For night terrors

Very morning,
I booked
A ticket home
To see my
Aging mother

Yes,
I was dreaming
I had never seen a bomb
Or a trench in my life
Why I am dreaming
Like this?

If my night terror
Was not bad enough,
How could it had been
The days and nights
For the guys and gals
Of the Yesteryear War?
Living without a roof,
I wonder?

Coconut Cookies

Coconut Cookies
Bashing the coconut milk and coconut oil is the standard practice in Ceylon and abroad. This has become a significant propaganda in America since there is a lobby in America who benefits from this misinformation campaign.

They have done this little over a half century and now only our people are asserting ourselves.

My intention is to bash the nuts of these people who probably do not have nuts as strong as coconuts.

Before that I should briefly state few of the conditions that would likely to give a heart attack to a susceptible candidate. 

There are so many of these variables or the predisposing factors (that one is likely or not to get a heart attack) pondering about them is actually a research work shrouded in mystery.

It is difficult to decide which ones is the most important and the most likely cause to increase the incidence of heart attack in spite of the proliferation of the literature.

Pointing a finger on one single variable especially on coconut milk is the most inappropriate.

It is not prudent in a scientific sense.

I have seen a debate on local papers (on coconut and its usage) but resisted any comments.

I thought the wiser counsel should prevail and avoid engaging in conflicting dialoge.
But now there is another debate on local paper whether "plant can sense or not" I think it is better to voice an opinion and arouse thinking habits in the minds of young ones.

The plant can sense but their sensing of events without a neural system is very advanced and they can sense the time of the day and night more accurately than an electronic clock. 

They use nano-particles and nao-systems to sense the ecosystem and weather that now only we are beginning to discover the true secrets.

So any prejudice is not warranted.

The probable variables of the likelihood of getting a heart attack are more that 20 and a few of them are as follows.

1. The diet containing many refined sugars and starches
2. Consumption of western food
3. Consumption of animal foods
4. Lack of exercise
5. Smoking
6. Alcohol consumption
7. Hypertension
8. Diabetes mellitus
9. Adaptation of western life style
10. Stress of any kind from money to domestic to work
11. Lack of antioxidants in food
12. Lack consumption of fruits and vegetables
13. Factors that encourage thrombosis
14. Poor oral hygiene and related minor infections

In this list I have no intention of putting coconut milk or Pol Sambol since we eat a combination of food items and not single items like fruits.

Furthermore, we eat after some preparation or preservation which increase or decrease the food value.

In the above list the least understood but the most common cause of heart attack is thrombosis. 

It is not possible to accurately discern this element (thrombosis) as at present and that is the most common precipitating and damaging factor.

The research should be directed there but not on atherosclerosis.

My belief or the gut feeling is that the smoking is a major contributor (direct as well as indirect) to thrombosis.

In some way vehicle exhaust fumes and air pollution also contribute significantly to thrombosis by cell damage by releasing mediators causing diseases known and unknown.

Air pollution has a major contribution to the increase in heart attacks in urban areas.

We were made to believe that carbon is an inert particle and does not do any damage and this view is fast changing in the West where research indicates that the air pollution due to vehicle exhaust impair physical performance in young children.

Winding, I should say, Maw-Kiri (Breast Milk), Pol-Kiri (Coconut Milk) and Piti-Kiri (Powdered Milk) kept me going on from my childhood to adulthood (in that order of sequence of introduction of milk and milk products to me in my young age).

I believe if not for the Pol-Kiri, I would have been dead in my childhood (there were no antibiotics except, Penicillins and Sulphas, those days) even following a simple diarrhea episode.

My mother's care and the Pol-Kiri, (Kiri Hodda) saved my life.

Probably my parents and my grand parents, too.

The rich "polkiri hodi" given to us in the recovery period of any febrile illness including diarrhea not only provided the energy (excellent readily available energy of short chain fatty acids) and nutrition but also the very valuable and non toxic antibiotics (some of the fatty acids).


Polkiri was the essence that contained all the other antibiotics that came in the way of onions including garlic.

They were the basic antibiotics that we consumed in our childhood with no side effects of the modern antibiotics!

Any attempt at discrediting the polkiri or pol sambol is bashing at the wrong thing for the wrong reason.

It is an offense.

We are what "we eat" and their consequences and putting the blame on a single element of coconut milk is the lack of the ownership of one's own responsibility for the mistakes of wrong habits (including smoking and drinking) and of dietetics.

24th November 2006

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Open Source Science - An Evolution

Open Source Science - An Evolution
 

Introduction
There is an explosion of information exchange but there is no equability in sharing that information. Additionally there is no verifiability. This was the impression I had before delving into gathering some information about the colour and its distribution in the animal kingdom (fish to be precise). To my surprise there is an open source science project probably taking its roots from Linux Phenomenon. A group of people with scientific orientation joining up to form an open forum for greater good of the public  (rather than a corporate agenda) is commendable. With the stem cell research taking priority in a commercial environment this is a healthy phenomenon.

Background
There is a proliferation of newspapers and journals in the local market (Ceylon) and I am not sure what has given rise to this phenomenon?

May be making a fast buck.
I believe editors of these journals are not concerned about whether people are actually reading them or not.
Is this just a bit of publicity stunt, a corporate agenda or a political inexpedience? 

Exploration may be?
I wonder why even the BBC is thinking of new innovations.

With the inter-net taking its shape in speed (with speed accuracy is sacrificed), content and opinion making the paper industry is becoming a static phenomenon. Ball by ball commentary of cricket in the Internet is boring to follow but busy people are adapting to the new trends. The local editors are failing miserably to give a true picture at the ground level and the world at large.
It looks as most of the writers and journalists have a "cut and paste mentality" and some are copied from foreign agencies without any comments attached by editors or journalists. 

I believe journalists like our own Carl Muller should do some research on these trends.

With so many mushrooming industries, which include illicit liquor, betting stalls and video parlors and many more other nefarious activities (which one should not be proud of) what is happening to print industry is something bewildering.

Expectations
My Primary Objective is to make learning science a pleasurable experience to young students and budding journalists.
The Secondary Objective is to find how quickly one can gather information from whatever the sources available in an academic environment.
A subsidiary objective is to put that information in simple terms so that the reader could understand (improve my writing skills as a by product) the contents with ease.

Conceptual Impressions

Gathering reliable information is a piece of cake and I could accomplish this with a  drop of a hat. 

I am looking for a "hat collection" of information.

Approach
Internet, reputed scientific journals, library and my own collection of old books were utilized in that order.

Outcome

Scientific journals always wanted to check on one's subscription status and ones that gave some free access was limited by arbitrary time limits. The search engines were very poor. The value of particular information was never highlighted in a sequential manner. There is just the proliferation of knowledge but no particular break down or an order of importance.

Reviews were noted for their absence.

There was an exception to this phenomenon of knowledge explosion especially in the publications of the Public Library of Science (PLOS). Other exception is some American Medical Journals who are opening up the knowledge base to all and sundries. A healthy trend is there but what is lacking is commitment.

Verdict
Cut and tie mentality of a surgeon's mind is replaced by cut and paste mentality of the window's users. Writing as a skillful job has deteriorated. Spelling mistakes (in my case too) and content jargon and inaccurate information were abundant. 

To my amazement in one piece of writing the blood of the species of fish is almost identical to human blood. 
I believe we have hereditary linkage to bacteria and fish but not to that extent. How my fish would die with a simplest of change in the environment explains why their immune system is different from ours.

I have neither become wiser nor enriched but perplexed and confused.

Simplicity
Simplicity is not the art. Terminologies were not defined or poorly explained (in manner simple enough) for a kid to grasp the meaning to life and beings. 
I have no surprise why many kids look at science without enthusiasm.

Books
My old books that dated back to sixties and seventies were a treasure trove for my illumination and they still are. Those writers had a penchant for science as well as writing. It is bounden duty for the scientists to write in simple terms with their own comments included. They should write books which little children would love to read and should not become self centered like our journalists who publish papers at the  drop of a hat for image building.

Scientists should not become image builders.

They should take a lead from the open source science projects (Public Library of Science) and make science a living experience.
None of my objectives were satisfied after a month of trying but this is going to change in my lifetime.

Perspectives
The curiosity of a kid of yesteryear who loved watching at the little mosquito fish (Guppy) dancing in little streams (that are polluted now beyond any recovery) and changing their colour and tail configurations from generation to generation, lead to learning biology (with interest) and later becoming a human biologist (a pathologist to be precise) and that diversion did not deter the interests in colour (pigmentation we call in medical terms) from all kinds of life (nature at large) to photography to computer graphics .............

In spite of Diversity of colour (fish, toads, birds and bees) and the Specificity of a given species, there is a common thread that links all species that extend down the millions of years of evolution which is a remarkable feat of Simplicity of biochemical compositions (melanin, guanine, xanthochromes and haemoglobin) that expresses in various combinations in all living cells to give a particular combination of colours.

In the process of diversion at certain points in earth's history, however the secrets of Unity in Purpose (i.e. the defense against cancer, withstanding oxidative stress, skillful communication of impending danger that include ecological strain and becoming a living biological barometer of environmental stress of pollution), the unique survival instinct of all living beings was not lost.

However, the Unity of Purpose is lost when it comes to man's world (of incessant exploitation) where skin colour can be a decisive discriminatory factor in making choices (may not be scientific by nature).
That is the final philosophical point which I wish to make before winding up.........

Effective Communication
If the expectations laid down in any investigation or analysis (whether it is accomplished or not) is not communicated effectively to all those who have similar interests (sometimes failures), the commitment that make one to get involved in an endeavour becomes void. 


The energy and enthusiasm dissipate.

In other words it becomes a failure.

What I call the Club mentality whether it is a Garden Club or a Bridge Club that motivates people with similar interests to interact effectively is lacking in the Scientific Community.

It is a sad phenomenon.

Guiding Principles
The guiding principle should be to benefit mankind and all species on board this planet earth and above all the wellbeing of the planet itself.
 

In this process of exploration, if the individual who gets involved reaps benefits it is of course a bonus.
 

It is a feather on one's cap.

Edited on the 4th of August 2006

Philosophy of Science

Philosophy of Science
The reality of science
Is that, the knowledge
Is incredibly changing fast
And incremental in nature


The principle that make
Science interesting
Is that the concept that
I upheld now
Is governed by the
Very exception to the rule
I have formulated


But it is the exception
That governs the rule
Not vice versa


That makes science
Expanding
Challenging
And interesting
With many ways
To explore
And explain
A given phenomenon
As distinct from
What is known as not understood
As at present

Energy

Energy
Come to think about it
Energy is the least understood
But easily
And often
Misquoted out of context
In science and journalism
And if I ask the question
Does the matter has energy?
The answer is not clear cut


Then I ponder for a little while
And ask again
Which has more energy
Matter in motion
Or the matter remaining still?
I am called a trouble maker
In my class of adults


When I delve in further
And ask
What is the smallest particle having energy?
Is it the electron, the neutron, the proton or the quarks?


Then when I ask what is the smallest unit of energy?
A photon
Or a wave
I am very much
Stuck with words of expression


Now that I am in deep waters
Not understanding
All these concepts
What shall do to go any further?


State of the matter
Is that
If each particle
Carries loads of energy
What is the essential force that
Intrinsically bind them together
And hold them tight?
In relation to position
They keep
In space and time
While allowing free
Moving particles to move
Without much of a hindrance
Or rather than with
Minimum of interference
From its neighbouring
Particles of existence


If only the moving particles have
Mass, velocity and energy
That goes with the momentum of forces
What is the principle that
I should apply to my body of interest
Where me standing still
On this planet earth
Has no energy
Until I decide to kick a football
With a force


Now who has the energy my leg muscles or my football or both?
How confusing are those concepts
Energy and Forces in action?
I wonder


Then again I should have
Some energy to stand on Earth
Much less if I stand on Moon
What about moon walking,
Sweet talking and sleeping on the go
In this universal universe and space?


What are the energy consumptions of all these activities on earth, on its outer boundaries and in the space in between?


The mind
That made me to kick the ball
Should have either some energy or force
In any case
I argue
Since the Mind
That made me to kick the ball
In the first place
Made the movement of the ball
Possible
Until such time the
Mother earth decided to
Abort it abruptly in its journey
In space and time
So the mother earth should
Have some control over my mind


In fact the matter over my mind
Rather than mind over matter
In this instance


Bees, flies, mosquitoes and birds can fly
And in their case
They decide to fly away
As they wish
And also control
The start and stop
of the flight
As desirable
So birds and bees
Have more energy than me
And humanoids


Staggeringly confusing

Isn't it?


So who has more energy
The Mind (Kicking)
The Matter (Ball)
The Motion (Transition)
The Bees (Flight)
Or the mother Earth (Gravity)
That stopped the ball in its trajectory?


I wish the answer
Is clear enough
For a kiddy

I am not kidding


The answer to those questions
Are open to inquiry in a
Philosophical Sense
Now that I am beginning to
Think as a Thinker
But not as a Scientist
Who would provide me
The answers to the scientific tenents
That were raised in an open forum
Of inquiry


What is more powerful
Energy wise
The Thinking Mind
Or the Science in Action


I believe the former rather than the latter


Since the mind can penetrate
These concepts at will
Or at leisure
What is an energy and what is a force
The mind's energy by its very nature
Is probably far more superior
In its contents and activity
When used wisely and appropriately


Subtle and pervasive
Penetrating
The truths of all kinds
It is the mother superior
Of wisdom


Now winding up my thought process
Who had used more force
The Italian Parvo Rotti's Goal Header
The French Zidane Zidane's Head butt
And an ordinary Ceylonese (my) Penalty Kick
At the goal post
Of Wisdom
Sans DESTRUCTION


The power of the Mind
Could be ascertained
By intense focus
And attention
To its moment of Origin
And the Energy of its consumption
Can only be harnessed
By sustained
Commitment and Conformity to details of
Metta, Anapana Sati or any object of
Attention sans attachment
And the Competence in Meditation
CULTIVATED


By that intention
It is achieved
By the wise
The Arhaths
The Buddhas
And Passeka Buddhas
Of today, tomorrow, yesterday
And now in this moment of
Universal extension
Of the timeless dimensions
Of the Sansara Cycle


14th of September 2006
Edited on the 16th September