Cancer: causes and cures

Re: Electromagnetic radiation and its effect on the brain

You're welcome everyone :) I'm still glad that this got some airtime on a mainstream radio station, even though he didn't really 'spill the beans', he was 'careful'. They said the following day that the show got a major response from the public.
 
Re: Electromagnetic radiation and its effect on the brain

Interesting synopsis of the BioInitiative Report. 15'30 stood out, where the interviewee talks about stress proteins caused by microwave radiation:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/207253-The-BioInitiative-Report-The-Dangerous-Health-Impacts-of-Microwave-Radiation
 
Re: Electromagnetic radiation and its effect on the brain

This part is eerily reminiscent of the the C's mentioning that light was used to 'burn away certain strands of DNA' in order to further limit humanity's potential/further engineer the 'containers'.

Trower said:
I have three papers showing that low level microwaves can interfere with the genetics in the ovarian follicles. Now what that means in everyday language, different from boys, young girls when they're born, they will have up to four hundred eggs in their ovaries. The microwaves can damage the genetic structure, we now know, in those ovaries. So, when this young girl grows up, gets married, and has children, if she has a daughter, this particular mitochondrial genetic damage is irreparable. There is nothing at all that can repair it.

If there is a global blanket of microwave energy that is irreparably damaging mitochondrial DNA in young girls, then not only will the effects not be seen for a generation, but, we might be a different 'species' as a result. One wonders if such things are linked to the spike in autism in the 'developed' world in the last ten years as well.

But - on top of ALL that - the mind control - no wonder the C's said wi fi is very very bad (not that we didn't know, but...) !
 
Re: Electromagnetic radiation and its effect on the brain

E, great job on transcribing this, thank you.

Mr Scott said:
Other than cell phone usage and WiFi in your house, one thing to really watch out for is if you have a laptop. Quite often, when you reboot the laptop, the WiFi (and/or Bluetooth) will automatically turn itself on again. Best to turn off the WiFi and Bluetooth, or else you are just sitting there irradiating yourself for no reason. Bad juju!

Thanks, Mr Scott, for the heads up. This applies not only to laptops but some new desktop PCs too. Some of the latest motherboards have wireless capability built in.

This is how to switch off wireless capability in a Windows PC:

Right click on the 'My Computer' icon on the desktop and select 'Properties', then open Device Manager. Click on the little symbol next to 'Network Adapters' to view the list. If your computer has wireless capability you will see something like 'xxx Wireless xxx Network Adapter'. Make sure the device has the word 'wireless' in the name. Right click on this and select 'Disable'. A pop-up message will ask you if you really want to turn this device off. Just click OK. The device is now disabled and will not automatically start when you restart the PC.
 
Re: Electromagnetic radiation and its effect on the brain

And on a Mac, you can see in the top right corner if wi fi is enabled. As you can see in the below picture, you can turn AirPort off to disable it. Once disabled, it will appear greyed out.

snow-leopard-no-wifi-menu-bar-icon.png


Bluetooth will appear as the letter B (but in the style we know as a bluetooth icon). You can turn it off from here as well. Once disabled, it will no longer appear there.

7_memopadscreensnapz001.jpg


If you're super conscious about locking down your operating system, such as disabling the camera, microphone etc (in the event someone hacks and takes control of it remotely), then check this out. It's applicable for all operating systems. I'm sure the NSA have plenty more they do in-house, but this gives you an idea of what to disable and lock down to improve your security.
http://www.nsa.gov/ia/guidance/security_configuration_guides/operating_systems.shtml
 
Re: Electromagnetic radiation and its effect on the brain

Totally forgot about laptop! Since it's a share house I can't convince everyone to give up the WiFi. So, if I hard line my laptop, will I be getting less WiFi because the laptop transmits as well? The router is about 20 ft away on the floor above. I don't know if my share mates will be cool with me running a cable all over the place but I'll try. I've been giving myself a pretty good dose over the past year - yikes!
 
Re: Electromagnetic radiation and its effect on the brain

I seem to recall that it is not enough to turn off
the cell or some devices, as some devices are
still running while the battery is still in place?

In other cases, I seem to recall that some new
technology allows these devices to remain running
for a time, even when the battery is removed, and
even further, grabs energy "from the air"... I could
be wrong though....

There was point that while having the cell phone in recharge (and in the off setting shutting it down) that it rested next to a Am, FM, and short wave radio with 3 kinds of antenna system's for receiving the different radio signals. Being where I was located ( high desert of Nevada 4100 ft above sea level) I could only get under 3 am stations and at night even worse.

So I would continue to notice that the cell phone would pick up signals as if it was still transmitting or receiving a signal. One can test this yourself (or has experienced it) by making a cell phone call and stand next to portable radio or being in a car with radio turned on. You can hear the magnetic energy from the cell tower pulsing the signal to the phone. Its a continuous of and on pulse sound electrical energy.

So it came down to just dropping the battery out it when I went to bed. And this may be paranoid but I when was engaged in conversations with certain people that I would and ask them as well as my cell phone to remove the batteries from the phone for privacy, as I just never knew how the cat was trying to get the mouse and that if anyone could ease drop the cell phone would be the Trojan Horse to allow it.
Cellular Phone Low Level RF Radiation Dangers?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are cellular phones dangerous to your health? Although there is no conclusive proof of these dangers, just about everyone is recommending keeping your cellular phone's RF signal away from your body by using an external cell phone antenna or hands-free kit.

What's to be afraid of?
Your cellular phone is basically a low power, two way radio. Being a radio, your phone uses radio frequency (RF) signals. When you talk on your phone, an RF signal is transmitted phone to nearby tower then to land lines, out to the destination tower until it makes it to the destination cell phone. The term "cellular" comes from towers set up across your coverage area, each tower is considered a cell. When you're traveling, you may go from cell to cell (or tower to tower).

Since your cellular phone uses radio frequency signals, you, the user, is exposed to these signals. However, the signal uses very little power and is very low. The general consenus is that the power is too low to have any effect on human health. Most scientists are not concerned. However there are some that disagree.

Here are a few articles, links to research and other sources of information on the possible dangers of cellular phone signal.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, what does the industry have to say about it?
CTIA is the voice of the wireless industry - representing its members in a constant dialogue with policy makers in the Executive Branch, in the Federal Communications Commission, and in Congress, CTIA's industry committees provide leadership in the area of taxation, roaming, safety, regulations, fraud and technology.

CTIA and the wireless industry are deeply committed to safety and to providing timely, accurate information to consumers about wireless phones. This website is one of the ways in which we communicate this information.

First, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have said that the scientific evidence to date does not demonstrate any adverse health effects associated with the use of wireless phones. However, they and other government and scientific groups have called for further research, a call to which the industry both in the United States and around the world has supported. Second, there has been significant research conducted on wireless phones and health; much has been completed and much more continues even today. In fact, in the early summer of 2000, CTIA launched a new research initiative in conjunction with FDA -- known as a CRADA -- to further examine scientific questions about radiofrequency (RF) energy. The results of this work will augment the existing body of scientific information and will be shared with the public as quickly as it becomes available.

Read more on CTIA's view on cellular phone health issues.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
What biological effects can be caused by RF energy?
The energy levels associated with radiofrequency energy, including both radio waves and microwaves, are not great enough to cause the ionization of atoms and molecules. Therefore, RF energy is a type of non-ionizing radiation. Other types of non-ionizing radiation include visible light, infrared radiation (heat) and other forms of electromagnetic radiation with relatively low frequencies.

FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Like other components of FDA, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health has established advisory committees to provide independent, professional expertise and technical assistance on the development, safety and effectiveness, and regulation of medical devices and electronic products that produce radiation. Each committee consists of experts with recognized expertise and judgment in a specific field. Members have the training and experience necessary to evaluate information objectively and to interpret its significance. These persons are not regular employees of FDA, but are paid as "special government employees" for the days they participate as members of a panel. This is time they take from their daily occupations to provide their professional skills to FDA. The committees are advisory -- they provide their expertise and recommendations -- but final decisions are made by FDA. Go here to visit this site.

FDA FAQ: Do wireless phones pose a health hazard?
The available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones. There is no proof, however, that wireless phones are absolutely safe. Wireless phones emit low levels of radiofrequency energy (RF) in the microwave range while being used. They also emit very low levels of RF when in the stand-by mode. Whereas high levels of RF can produce health effects (by heating tissue), exposure to low level RF that does not produce heating effects causes no known adverse health effects. Many studies of low level RF exposures have not found any biological effects. Some studies have suggested that some biological effects may occur, but such findings have not been confirmed by additional research. In some cases, other researchers have had difficulty in reproducing those studies, or in determining the reasons for inconsistent results.

Do wireless phone accessories that claim to shield the head from RF radiation work?
Since there are no known risks from exposure to RF emissions from wireless phones, there is no reason to believe that accessories that claim to shield the head from those emissions reduce risks. Some products that claim to shield the user from RF absorption use special phone cases, while others involve nothing more than a metallic accessory attached to the phone. Studies have shown that these products generally do not work as advertised. Unlike "hand-free" kits, these so-called "shields" may interfere with proper operation of the phone. The phone may be forced to boost its power to compensate, leading to an increase in RF absorption. In February 2002, the Federal trade Commission (FTC) charged two companies that sold devices that claimed to protect wireless phone users from radiation with making false and unsubstantiated claims. According to FTC, these defendants lacked a reasonable basis to substantiate their claim.

What about wireless phone interference with medical equipment?
Radiofrequency energy (RF) from wireless phones can interact with some electronic devices. For this reason, FDA helped develop a detailed test method to measure electromagnetic interference (EMI) of implanted cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators from wireless telephones. This test method is now part of a standard sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Medical instrumentation (AAMI). The final draft, a joint effort by FDA, medical device manufacturers, and many other groups, was completed in late 2000. This standard will allow manufacturers to ensure that cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators are safe from wireless phone EMI.

FDA has tested hearing aids for interference from handheld wireless phones and helped develop a voluntary standard sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). This standard specifies test methods and performance requirements for hearing aids and wireless phones so that that no interference occurs when a person uses a “compatible” phone and a “compatible” hearing aid at the same time. This standard was approved by the IEEE in 2000.

FDA continues to monitor the use of wireless phones for possible interactions with other medical devices. Should harmful interference be found to occur, FDA will conduct testing to assess the interference and work to resolve the problem.

More about cellular phone safety from the FDA

Go here for more on radiofrequency signals on the FDA's website.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

World Health Organization
2003 WHO Research Agenda for Radio Frequency Fields
Introduction

In 1997, the WHO International EMF Project developed a Research Agenda in order to facilitate and coordinate research on the possible adverse health effects of non-ionizing radiation. In subsequent years, this agenda has undergone periodic review and refinement.

A major update to the RF (radiofrequencies) Research Agenda was undertaken with the input of an ad hoc committee of invited scientific experts who met in Geneva in June 2003. Further input to the RF Research Agenda came from a WHO Workshop “Adverse Temperature Levels in the Human Body” held in Geneva in March, 2002, (see Goldstein et al., Int. J. Hyperthermia 19, 373-384, 2003). The committee reviewed research in the following areas: Epidemiology and Human Laboratory Studies, Animal and Cellular Studies, and Dosimetry. Consideration was restricted to RF; possible effects non-ionizing radiation from static fields, wide-band and power frequencies will be considered separately.

The RF Research Agenda defines high priority research whose results would contribute to the WHO health risk assessment for RF exposures. Researchers are encouraged to use the Research Agenda as a guide to studies that have high value for WHO health risk assessments. To maximize the effectiveness of large research programs, government and industry funding agencies are encouraged to address the WHO Research Agenda in a coordinated fashion. Such coordination will minimize unnecessary duplication of effort and will ensure the most timely completion of the studies identified as being of high priority for health risk assessment.
Read more on the WHO Research


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

World Health Organization
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS
AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Mobile Telephones and Their Base Stations

Mobile telephones, sometimes called cellular phones or handies, are now an integral part of modern telecommunications. In some parts of the world, they are the most reliable or only phones available. In others, mobile phones are very popular because they allow people to maintain continuous communication without hampering freedom of movement.

This fact sheet has been updated in the light of recent reviews of the effects on human beings of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) fields conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in November 1999, the Royal Society of Canada (1999), and a review on mobile phones and health by an expert committee in the United Kingdom (IEGMP 2000).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHO: A Review of Completed and Ongoing RF Bioeffects Research
Relevant To Cancer Risk Assessment
Over 180 studies have been initiated using human, animal, and cell culture experimental
models to investigate whether exposure to radiofrequency (RF) emissions, specifically from
mobile telephony, can cause or promote cancer (Table 1). One hundred fifteen of these
studies are now complete, with the vast majority reporting no association with cancer
endpoints. A list of these studies including details of exposure, test model, and author's
conclusions can be obtained from the WHO website at http://www.who.int/pehemf/
research/database/en/. The results of cancer related studies from this database will be
used by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2004/05 to evaluate RF
emissions as a potential human carcinogen. In addition, the results of non-cancer related
studies from this database will be used by the WHO in 2005/06 to evaluate RF emissions for
adverse human health effects other than cancer. In such evaluations, epidemiological studies
will carry the most weight. Animal studies will play an important role when epidemiological
studies are weak or not definitive. In vitro studies will generally have a supporting or
clarifying role. Read more.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Acoustic Neuroma
Epidemiology. 15(6):653-659, November 2004.
Lonn, Stefan *; Ahlbom, Anders *; Hall, Per +; Feychting, Maria *

Background: Radiofrequency exposure from mobile phones is concentrated to the tissue closest to the handset, which includes the auditory nerve. If this type of exposure increases tumor risk, acoustic neuroma would be a potential concern.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Long-Term Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumor Risk
Stefan Lönn1, Anders Ahlbom1, Per Hall2, Maria Feychting1 and the Swedish Interphone Study Group

Handheld mobile phones were introduced in Sweden during the late 1980s. The purpose of this population-based, case-control study was to test the hypothesis that long-term mobile phone use increases the risk of brain tumors. The authors identified all cases aged 20–69 years who were diagnosed with glioma or meningioma during 2000–2002 in certain parts of Sweden. Randomly selected controls were stratified on age, gender, and residential area.

Human exposure to radiofrequency radiation has increased dramatically during recent years from widespread use of mobile phones. If radiofrequency radiation has a carcinogenic effect, the exposure poses an important public health problem, and intracranial tumors would be of primary interest. A biologic mechanism that could explain any possible carcinogenic effect from radiofrequency radiation has not been identified. It is generally agreed that the heating of tissue by radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone use is negligible and that any carcinogenic effect would have to be mediated through a nonthermal mechanism. The results of most previous studies of brain tumors in mobile phone users have been negative although a Finnish study and a Swedish study have indicated an increased risk. Studies of ionizing radiation have indicated that the induction period of radiation-induced solid tumors is probably at least 10 years. If, however, the mechanism is one of promotion rather than initiation, a shorter induction period would be possible. No studies to date have had an exposure time long enough to properly address the potential adverse late health effects of mobile phone use.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003
LENNART HARDELL1,2, MICHAEL CARLBERG1 and KJELL HANSSON MILD2,3
1Department of Oncology, University Hospital, SE-701 85 Örebro; 2Department of Natural Sciences, Örebro University, SE-701 82 Örebro; 3National Institute for Working Life, SE-907 13 Umeå, Sweden

The use of cellular and cordless telephones is widespread and increasing in society. A potential association between cellular and cordless telephones and health effects is of concern and has been discussed in several articles during recent years (1-3). Of special concern is the risk of brain tumours since this is a part of the body with high exposure during phone calls compared with other parts. Cellular telephones emit radio frequency signals during calls. Exposure is characterized through the specific absorption rate (SAR) expressed as watt/kg. Analogue (NMT; Nordic Mobile Telephone System) phones operating at 450 MegaHertz (MHz) were introduced in Sweden in 1981. At first, they were usually used in cars with a fixed external antenna.
Portable NMT 450 phones were introduced in 1984. Analogue phones using 900 MHz (NMT 900) were used in Sweden between 1986 and 2000. The digital system (GSM; Global System for Mobile Communication) started in 1991 and has during recent years dramatically increased to become the most common phone type. This system uses dual band, 900 and 1,800 MHz, for communication. From 2003, the third generation of mobile phones, 3G or UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunication System), was introduced in Sweden, operating at 1,900 MH


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cell Phones and Cancer: What Is the Evidence for a Connection?
J. E. Moulder,a L. S. Erdreich,b R. S. Malyapa,c J. Merritt,d W. F. Pickarde and Vijayalaxmif
There have been allegations in the media and in the courts that cell phones and other types of hand-held transceivers are a cause of cancer. There have also been numerous public objections
to the siting of TV, radio and cell phone transmission facilities because of a fear of cancer induction. A recent publication in Radiation Research by Repacholi et al. (147, 631– 640, 1997) which suggests that exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation may increase lymphoma incidence in mice has contributed to this controversy. The goal of this review is to provide biomedical researchers a brief overview of the existing RF radiation–cancer studies. This article begins with a brief review of the physics and technology of cell phones. It then reviews the existing epidemiological studies of RF radiation, identifying gaps in our knowledge. Finally, the review discusses the cytogenetics literature on RF radiation and the whole-animal RF-radiation carcinogenesis studies. The epidemiological evidence for an association between RF radiation
and cancer is found to be weak and inconsistent, the laboratory studies generally do not suggest that cell phone RF radiation has genotoxic or epigenetic activity, and a cell phone RF radiation–cancer connection is found to be physically implausible. Overall, the existing evidence for a causal relationship between RF radiation from cell phones and cancer is found to be weak to nonexistent. q 1999 by Radiation Research Society
Go here to read this document.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mobile telephones - An evaluation of health effects
Mobile telecommunication has developed considerably in recent years: to date over half the population of the Netherlands posses a mobile telephone. Nevertheless, concerns also grow, particularly as to whether exposure to electromagnetic fields from antennas and mobile telephones can adversely affect health. In this advisory report, the Electromagnetic Fields Committee of the Health Council of the Netherlands provides, on the basis of the scientific literature, an overview of various aspects that may play a role. The Committee comes to the conclusion that there is at present no reason for concern. However, since mobile telephony leads to widespread electromagnetic field exposure and relatively little knowledge exists on, especially, longterm effects, it indicates areas for further research. In particular, the Committee indicates in what areas research can be conducted in the Netherlands.
Go here to read this report.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Epidemiologic Studies of Cellular Telephones and Cancer Risk – A Review
JOHN D. BOICE, JR. AND JOSEPH K. MCLAUGHLIN
SUMMARY: Cellular telephones emit and receive radiofrequency (RF) signals between
about 450 and 2200 MHz which fall in the microwave region of the electromagnetic
spectrum. A RF wave from a cellular telephone contains billions of times less energy
than an x-ray and is not capable of inducing ionizations or damaging DNA. The rapid
and widespread use of this technology, however, has raised concern over possible adverse
health effects, in particular brain cancer. A few studies which addressed this
concern in the United States and Sweden are non-informative, either because the follow-
up was too short and numbers of cancers too small (USA) or because of serious
methodological limitations (Sweden). In contrast, five well-designed epidemiologic
studies have been conducted in three countries by investigators using different designs:
three hospital-based case-control studies in the United States, a registry-based casecontrol
study in Finland, and a registry-based cohort study of over 400,000 cellular
phone users in Denmark. In our view, a consistent picture has emerged from these studies
that appears to rule out, with a reasonable degree of certainty, a causal association
between cellular telephones and cancer to date. No consistent evidence was observed
for increased risk of brain cancer, meningioma, acoustic neuroma, ocular melanoma,
or salivary gland cancer, examined over a wide range of exposure measures, including
type of phone (analogue or digital), duration of use, frequency of use, total cumulative
hours of use, tumor location and laterality (concurrence of tumor location with hand
normally used during phone conversations). These methodologically sound epidemiologic
investigations have limitations associated with any non-experimental study, and
although they are not the same across each of the studies, the influence of bias, confounding
and uncertainties in exposure assessment cannot be completely discounted.
However, increased risks of 20% or higher can be excluded with a high level of confidence.
Complementing the human data are the emerging results of experimental studies
which have failed to confirm earlier reports of possible adverse outcomes from RF
exposure. Moreover, there is no biologically plausible mechanism to support a carcinogenic
effect of non-ionizing RF waves. While the current state of the science is reassuring,
ongoing case-control studies being conducted in 13 countries using a shared
protocol, and continued follow-up of cohorts of cellular phone users, should provide
further evidence regarding any possible carcinogenic effect associated with long-term
cellular telephone use.
Go here to read this report.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health
by John Moulder and the Medical College of Wisconsin
This FAQ addresses the issue of whether base station transmitter/antennas for cellular phones, PCS phones, and other types of portable transceivers are a risk to human health.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do Cellular Phones Cause Brain Cancer?
The Australian Newspaper, April 29, 1997
There has been anecdotal evidence for several years associating use of cellular phones, and other sources of electromagnetic radiation in the microwave region of the spectrum, with brain cancers and other cancers. From police officers who used radar guns to heavy users of cellular phones who have contracted cancer, there has been mounting evidence that exposure to this kind of electromagnetic radiation may not be as safe as advertised.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't get fooled again
By James Freeman USA Today
Do cell phones cause cancer? We don't know yet, but the history of similar scares is that they look less and less scary the more we learn about them. We now know that the infamous power line cancer scare resulted not only from sloppy science, but also from outright academic fraud, according to the Office of Research Integrity at the government's National Institutes of Health.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the Inadequacy of Existing Safety Guidelines
G.J. HYLAND, University of Warwick, Department of Physics, COVENTRY, CV4 7AL, England.
The importance of ensuring compatibility between activated electronic instrumentation of various kinds and the pulsed microwave radiation currently used in GSM mobile telephony is well recognised and generally accepted. Prohibition of the use of cellular phones on aircraft and in hospitals, on the grounds that their emissions might adversely interfere with the operation of sensitive electronic equipment, is familiar, and their possible deleterious effect on personal medical devices, such as heart pacemakers, hearing aids, defibrillators and insulin pumps has been the subject of a number of published scientific studies in recent years. Given that it is inconceivable - at least in the case of aviational and hospital equipment - that the interference could arise from the heating effect of the radiation, some other, non-thermal, influence of the radiation must here (at least tacitly) be considered to be responsible. Unfortunately, however, the same considerations do not currently extend to the alive human organism, which is generally considered to be immune from adverse influences of GSM radiation, on account of its intensity [1] being far too low to cause any deleterious degree of body tissue heating (as quantified through the so-called specific absorption rate, or SAR [2]; for, contrary to case of electronic instrument-ation, it is generally accepted that for humans adverse effects can arise only from excessive heating. Indeed, this belief is reflected in the relative leniency of the ICNIRP Safety Guidelines [3], which permit us to be exposed to electric fields that are over ten times stronger than the limit of 3V/m limit that is applicable to all electronic goods offered for sale in the EU under current legislation on Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC).



April 21, 2010 8:00 AM PDT
Legal spying via the cell phone system
by Elinor Mills
Font sizePrintE-mailShare41 comments Yahoo! Buzz
Share328 6diggsdigg

Nick DePetrillo

(Credit: Karen Costello)
Two researchers say they have found a way to exploit weaknesses in the mobile telecom system to legally spy on people by figuring out the private cell phone number of anyone they want, tracking their whereabouts, and listening to their voice mail.

Independent security researcher Nick DePetrillo and Don Bailey, a security consultant with iSec Partners, planned to provide details in a talk entitled "We Found Carmen San Diego" at the Source Boston security conference on Wednesday.

"There are a lot of fragile eggs in the telecom industry and they can be broken," Bailey said in an interview with CNET. "We assume the telecom industry protects our privacy. But we've been able to crack the eggs and piece them together."

The first part of the operation involves getting a target's cell phone number from a public database that links names to numbers for caller ID purposes. DePetrillo used open-source PBX software to spoof the outgoing caller ID and then automated phone calls to himself, triggering the system to force a name lookup.

"We log that information and associate it with a phone number in a (caller ID) database," DePetrillo said. "We created software that iterates through these numbers and can crawl the entire phone database in the U.S. within a couple of weeks... We have done whole cities and pulled thousands of records."

"It's not illegal, nor is it a breach of terms of service," Bailey said.

Next up is matching the phone number with a geographic location. The SS7 (Signaling System) public switched network routes calls around the world and uses what's called the Home Location Register to log the whereabouts of numbers so networks can hand calls off to one another, DePetrillo said. Individual phones are registered to mobile switching centers within specific geographic regions and they are logged in to that main register, he said.

Only telecom providers are supposed to have access to the location register, but small telcos in the EU are offering online access to it for a fee, mostly to companies using it for marketing data and cost projections, according to DePetrillo.

"Using previous research on the subject as a starting point, we've developed a way to map these mobile switching center numbers to caller ID information to determine what city and even what part of a city a phone number is in" at any given moment, he said. "I can watch a phone number travel to different mobile switching centers. If I know your phone number, I can track your whereabouts globally."

For instance, the researchers were able to track a German journalist talking to a confidential informant in Serbia and follow his travels back to Germany, as well as obtain the informant's phone number, Bailey said.



Don Bailey

(Credit: Jessica Gaul)
Bailey said he had contacted telecom providers with the information on how industry outsiders were able to get to information believed to be privileged to the providers, but said the hands of GSM providers in the U.S. are tied.

"The attack is based on the assumption of how the networks work worldwide," he said. "For interoperability and peer sake, the larger providers in the U.S. have to hand out the information to other providers."

Asked what cell phone users can do to protect themselves, Bailey said, "people are just going to have to be made aware of the threat."

It's also relatively easy to access other people's voice mail, a service that's been around for years from providers like SlyDial. They operate by making two nearly simultaneous calls to a target number, one of which disconnects before it is picked up and another that goes straight into voice mail because of the earlier call. This enables the caller to go directly to voice mail without the phone ringing. DePetrillo and Bailey re-created that functionality for purposes of their legal spying scenario.

"If I want to find Brad Pitt, I find his number using the caller ID database, use Home Location Register access to figure out what provider he has. T-Mobile is vulnerable to voice mail spoofing so I get into his voice mail and listen to his messages," said DePetrillo. "But I can also have the system tell me the numbers of the callers and I can take those numbers and look them up in the caller ID database and use the Home Location Register system to find their providers and break into their voice mail, and so on."

This can allow someone to make a social web of people, their cell numbers, the context of their voice mail, and their relationships to others, he said.

"These attack scenarios are applicable to corporations and individual users alike," DePetrillo said. "Corporations specifically should start to take a look at their security policies for executives as this can impact a business very hard, with insider trading, tracking of executives, etc."
 
Re: Electromagnetic radiation and its effect on the brain

~Fabric~ said:
Totally forgot about laptop! Since it's a share house I can't convince everyone to give up the WiFi. So, if I hard line my laptop, will I be getting less WiFi because the laptop transmits as well? The router is about 20 ft away on the floor above. I don't know if my share mates will be cool with me running a cable all over the place but I'll try. I've been giving myself a pretty good dose over the past year - yikes!

It took me a while, but I finally managed to convince my housemates to switch from WiFi to a wired network. This stuff has an incredible hold on peoples' minds and is difficult to remove without upsetting them all to hell. I have super long cables that I found cheaply through a seller on ebay (based in the UK). I wouldn't recommend them as it took them a long time to deliver the cables and router, but it's good to know that there are affordable alternatives out there.

Endymion said:
Right click on the 'My Computer' icon on the desktop and select 'Properties', then open Device Manager. Click on the little symbol next to 'Network Adapters' to view the list. If your computer has wireless capability you will see something like 'xxx Wireless xxx Network Adapter'. Make sure the device has the word 'wireless' in the name. Right click on this and select 'Disable'. A pop-up message will ask you if you really want to turn this device off. Just click OK. The device is now disabled and will not automatically start when you restart the PC.

Thanks for pointing this out - I've just disabled it. So does this mean that besides the WiFi outlet connected to my modem downstairs, my laptop has been zapping me with a WiFi microwaves up close and personal this whole time?

:mad:
 
Re: Electromagnetic radiation and its effect on the brain

Nathan said:
And on a Mac, you can see in the top right corner if wi fi is enabled. As you can see in the below picture, you can turn AirPort off to disable it. Once disabled, it will appear greyed out.

snow-leopard-no-wifi-menu-bar-icon.png

Will this actually offer protection if the wireless is still running on the modem? The EM waves are still present, aren't they? What about instead of disabling Airport, going right to the modem and shutting off the Internet? I could be wrong, but something tells me that just disabling AirPort wouldn't be enough to completely cancel any EM waves.
 
Re: Electromagnetic radiation and its effect on the brain

Thank you for the podcast E, I listened to it yesterday on my way to work. What is shocking is when Barrie said that you are in essence cooking yourself in a microwave if you make a call in a car :shock:. It's kind of ironic because I made a call in my car as I was listening to the podcast, and a few minutes later he said that. I left my phone in my car instead of carrying it around in my pocket like usual.

But I'm not sure about this:

dant said:
I seem to recall that it is not enough to turn off
the cell or some devices, as some devices are
still running while the battery is still in place?

Because Barrie seemed to say that if it's not transmitting or receiving calls it's ok:

JCW:

Really, so if you switch off that cell phone, not put it on silent, but if you switch it off, presumably, then it’s okay because it’s switched off?

BT:

Yes.

and:

JCW:

My three year old boy plays games on my cell phone daily. Is it safe for him to continue or should I stop him?

BT:

If the cell phone is just being used like a simple calculator for games, there is no problem. If it is transmitting somewhere then there is a problem.

I also didn't understand the part about the radio. I listen to my car radio usually. But aren't radio waves less harmful than microwaves? How does a radio wave turn into a microwave when in a car? :huh:

JCW:

Will car radios have the same effect on you, turning a car into a microwave, if I turn on my car radio? Is that a problem?

BT:
You should never , ever have microwave radiation inside a car, not ever. Never ever.

I've always carried my cell phone in my pocket. But for some months now I have it turned off. But if it's true that only when transmitting or receiving does it produce radiation then it shouldn't be a problem, osit. I really only use it as a clock, and infrequent calls if I need to contact home or someone at work.
 
Re: Electromagnetic radiation and its effect on the brain

3D Student said:
I also didn't understand the part about the radio. I listen to my car radio usually. But aren't radio waves less harmful than microwaves? How does a radio wave turn into a microwave when in a car? :huh:

JCW:

Will car radios have the same effect on you, turning a car into a microwave, if I turn on my car radio? Is that a problem?

BT:
You should never , ever have microwave radiation inside a car, not ever. Never ever.

Yeah, that bit is a little confusing. I think he may have misunderstood the question. We were also wondering about the car radio. Maybe someone who is knowledgeable about these things can shed some light.
 
Re: Electromagnetic radiation and its effect on the brain

Hi all, once I D.C. the wifi how would I connect the hard line as i have done with no luck and back on wifi at the moment with orange live box? :huh:
 
Re: Electromagnetic radiation and its effect on the brain

Heimdallr said:
Nathan said:
And on a Mac, you can see in the top right corner if wi fi is enabled. As you can see in the below picture, you can turn AirPort off to disable it. Once disabled, it will appear greyed out.

Will this actually offer protection if the wireless is still running on the modem? The EM waves are still present, aren't they? What about instead of disabling Airport, going right to the modem and shutting off the Internet? I could be wrong, but something tells me that just disabling AirPort wouldn't be enough to completely cancel any EM waves.

you need to do both: Switch off the 'wireless' part of the wireless router AND any switch off the wireless receiver/transmitter on every PC.


Kniall said:
Thanks for pointing this out - I've just disabled it. So does this mean that besides the WiFi outlet connected to my modem downstairs, my laptop has been zapping me with a WiFi microwaves up close and personal this whole time?
:mad:

yup!
 
Re: Electromagnetic radiation and its effect on the brain

M.A.O. said:
Hi all, once I D.C. the wifi how would I connect the hard line as i have done with no luck and back on wifi at the moment with orange live box? :huh:

If your Livebox has multiple ethernet ports in back, or even 1 ethernet port, you should be able to just connect to that directly. Then you might have to go to the Livebox config page through your web browser, which will be something like 192.168.1.1 or whatever. But you'll have to check the manual or online help for Orange to see exactly how to config it.

They may have configured the box to work primarily with WiFi. I know at least one person who had Orange's service and he could never get the ethernet to work, so he ended up buying a WiFi card for his desktop computer! Orange is not exactly on the ball in terms of reliable and easy-to-use DSL modems, unfortunately. But, where there's a will, there's a way!
 
Re: Electromagnetic radiation and its effect on the brain

JCW:

Will car radios have the same effect on you, turning a car into a microwave, if I turn on my car radio? Is that a problem?

BT:
You should never , ever have microwave radiation inside a car, not ever. Never ever.

I also think he misunderstood the question. That seemed to happen in a couple places in the interview.

A normal car radio won't actually transmit any RF signals at all. It will have a local oscillator for demodulating the AM or FM radio stations, which will radiate a teeny bit, but nothing like a cell phone. And, the highest frequency would be FM, so around 108 MHz. That's technically not a microwave frequency.

The same idea applies to a cell phone that's not in use, but powered up and awaiting a call: the cell phone still has a local oscillator running at microwave frequencies, because it has to be able to receive cell tower signals and demodulate/decode them in order to know if a call is coming in or not. In that "standby" mode, the phone is not actually transmitting, but there will still be very low levels of microwave radiation being emitted from the phone as it sits there listening for a cue from the cell towers. So, the power levels are much, much lower than when you make a call, but it's still "on".

When it comes to the cell towers themselves, there ain't a whole lot you can do. His advice to shield a wall with thick, conductive foil that is then grounded to the earth would certainly help, but you'd have to cover any windows, too. There are also two annoying problems:

1. cell phone systems are actually designed to deal with signals reflected from buildings and other surfaces, and even take advantage of the bounced signals
2. microwave signals from cell towers and cell phones propagate in interesting ways.

In other words, the reason you can still get good reception inside a huge building is because the signals can bounce all over the place and travel through tiny tiny openings even if the walls block the signal. And your cell phone is literally a technological marvel that performs all kinds of really neat mathematical gymnastics to make use of this fact. Too bad it's genetically altering you and making you crazy, too! SIGH. :( Oh well. I vote for psychic communication, anyway. It's gotta be safe if it's built in!

That's kind of a simplified explanation, but there you have it!
 
Back
Top Bottom