New iPhone Has No Headphone Jack (I-7)

By Dr. Mercola

Apple just announced that its newest brainchild, iPhone 7, which touts a thinner profile, exceptional water resistance and superior sound quality, will not feature a standard headphone jack.1

However, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) linked with wireless phone use as possibly carcinogenic to humans (aka cancer-causing), with potential for "increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer."2 The report was issued in 2011.

Apple's Legal page suggests that, "To reduce exposure to RF energy, use a hands-free option, such as the built in speakerphone, the supplied headphones or other similar accessories.

Carry (your phone) at least 5 [millimeters] (about half an inch) away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at, or below, the as-tested levels."3

However, new wireless AirPods (a premium accessory you can buy) will basically put radio transceivers in your ears. One problem with this recommendation is that wireless headphones increase the distance between your phone and your head, but you're simply exchanging one RF device and picking up another, CNN asserted.

"The RF of any wireless device — a cell phone, Bluetooth headphones or a wireless router — emits non-ionizing radiation. These devices aren't as dangerous as those that emit ionizing radiation, such as X-ray machines, but some experts remain wary of them nonetheless."4

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) recently concluded its "largest, most complex" two-year study,5 on potential health hazards of cell phone use. They found that RF and EMF exposure increases brain tumors in rats and mice; more significantly, in humans, a Scientific American article reported.6

Jerry Phillips, a biochemist and director of the Excel Science Center at the University of Colorado, said in a follow-up article that RF signals may interact with living tissues. Children and pregnant women using them are particularly vulnerable.

"It was always assumed that because the power being created by the handsets was low enough, there would be insufficient energy for heat production — and without heat production there would be no biological effects on users whatsoever."7

Cell Phone Use Worldwide and Why It's a Problem

Chairman of the neurosurgery department at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, Dr. Keith Black, noted that one of the most troubling aspects of cell phone use is that it will take, at minimum, generations to determine the full environmental and physical impact from exposure to these devices.

As of 2014, there were officially more mobile devices in the world than people. The recorded number at that time was 7.2 billion.8 Experts projected there will be $77 billion worth of cell phone revenue generated by 2017.9 Nearly two-thirds of adults in the U.S. own one.

Some "experts" think there's no reason for concern because they're viewing only the thermal effects of cell phones and how the body absorbs RF energy. The industry assures energy levels are too low to heat tissues, measured by Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), so there must not be biological consequences from cell phone use.

The recommendation for cell phone buyers is to compare ratings and pick one with a lower SAR. But SAR ratings can be considered worthless because only the radiation heat penetrating into your head is considered. Cell phone wave energy, signal modulation or magnetic fields created by the batteries aren't taken into account.

What about cell phones in shirt and jeans pockets, or tucked in hats and belts? CNN's report on the new Apple 7, as well as potential impacts on users, quoted Black's assessment:

"What microwave radiation does, in most simplistic terms, is similar to what happens to food in microwaves, essentially cooking the brain.

So in addition to leading to a development of cancer and tumors, there could be a whole host of other effects like cognitive memory function, since the memory temporal lobes are where we hold our cell phones."10

Cell Phone Radiation Concerns

The wireless industry calls radiation from FM radios and microwave ovens "non-ionizing." But when you use a cell phone to make a call, text or access data, your phone first sends RF waves from its antenna to nearby cell towers, then receives RF waves in return back to its antenna.

Most people hold their cell phones to their ears, which projects about 70 percent of the antenna's energy straight into your head.

You should hold your phones as far from your bodies as possible, especially during the initial hook-up, when the most power is being exchanged, and whenever possible, use the speaker function or a safe headset.

You might ask, why don't cell phone manufacturers tell us these things? The sad and infuriating fact is, nearly 75 percent of the studies alleging there are no toxic effects from cell phone use were funded by either the military or the wireless industry.

Of the independent studies conducted on the topic, 67 percent weren't linked to the industry which, it should be noted, was at last count worth around $171 billion.

Government Entities on Radiation and Electromagnetic Field Exposure

In May, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a "partial report"11 on potential cell phone radiofrequency radiation hazards, based on the rats and mice experiments. Results will be open for peer review and comment by the end of 2017. CNN's response:

"CNN typically does not report on animal studies, because the results often don't translate to humans.

However, these rare, aggressive [and] malignant tumors that occurred in male rats are the very same tumors found in epidemiologic studies in humans using cell phones for the longest period of time."

CNN quoted Dr. Dedra Davis, founder and president of the Environmental Health Trust, and visiting professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, asserts:

"The reason they released a partial report was because the senior scientist leading the study realized how extraordinarily important those results were. There is no other substance I know of where results like this have occurred in the National Toxicology Program." 

The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) says that if there's an RF exposure risk from cell phone use — "and at this point we do not know that there is" — it's probably very small. But if people are still concerned, they should spend less time on the phone and use the speakerphone function or wired headset.12 But Davis astutely reveals:

"My understanding is that the current generation of phones contain more sophisticated accelerometers that indicate when the phone is held next to the head and automatically put the phone on the lowest power possible, in order to both save battery life and reduce [RF] exposure to the brain or body, which would indicate a recognition of the need to reduce exposures directly to people." 

What the Wireless Industry Versus Studies Say About RF Energy

According to CNN, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) "strongly disputes" the notion that RF energy does any kind of damage to cell phone users.

In lock step, the industry sticks to the narrative that "scientific consensus, based on peer-reviewed evidence in the U.S. and a number of other countries, indicates that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk for adults or children." 

It further advises that people with concerns should place more distance between their body and the source of the RF, such as using a hands-free device, and reduce their "talk time."13

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences submitted a study showing that that in mice studies, whole body exposure to cell phone radiation may cause brain and heart cancer.

And, in a pooled analysis of case-controlled studies, Oncology Reports found an increased risk of brain tumors among heavy users of mobile and cordless phones.14

Another study concluded that EMF exposure can alter reproductive function, cellular homeostasis, endocrine function and fetal development in animals, as well as earlyembryonic development and pregnancy success.

In animal experiments, the adverse effects on reproductive function depended on the frequency, wave strength and duration of exposure.15 

The title of another study explains it very well: "Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic fields — a potentially underlying cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment."16 The conclusion was that "existing public safety limits are inadequate to protect public health."

Wave Energy Problems, Including Microwave

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has published some interesting anecdotes relating to microwave radio exposure, but adds that:

"Many statements from industry spokesmen state that 'not enough is known' about these exposures to identify risk, or that there is 'insufficient' or 'incomplete' evidence regarding such risks, or that there is 'no scientific consensus' on this risk. This implies that there isn't much scientific information on this subject. But actually, there is a great deal of research documenting adverse biological effects from low level RF exposures."

One of the most interesting accounts was covered in BioMed Central in 2012,17 regarding the U.S. embassy in Russia, which was inundated by radiation from a microwave transmitter positioned on the roof of a nearby building between 1953 and 1978. Russian medical researchers, according to the FCC, listed such symptoms as headache, fatigue, dizziness, cardiovascular abnormalities, sleep disorders, depression, irritability and memory impairment.

"Exposed embassy staff experienced a statistically significant excess of several problems, including: depression, irritability, difficulty in concentrating, memory loss, ear problems, skin problems, vascular problems and other health problems. Symptom incidence increased significantly with accrued years of exposure."18

The wide array of symptoms finally led to an investigation, led by Dr. A.M. Lilienfield, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University.

"The abnormalities found in this study were an embarrassment to the U.S. government, since the levels of exposure experienced by embassy staff inside the building were … dramatically below the described U.S. safety standards for microwave exposure. It appears that the conclusions of the study were altered to soft-pedal any abnormal findings."19

In 2001, La Ñora, Spain, a population of 1,900, had a GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) cell phone tower. A questionnaire, which residents filled out, contained 25 health concerns they called "RF syndrome" or "microwave sickness."

The symptoms included poor concentration, irritability, nausea, fatigue and dizziness. Similar problems were noted in Norway in 1998, France in 2002 and the populated area around a cell phone tower in Shebeen El-Kom, Egypt. People in Austria, Cypress and Bavaria have experienced similar problems.

Taking Responsibility: Use Caution With Wireless Devices

At the very least, cell phone users should use caution: Never "wear" your cell phone, store it in shirt pockets or hold it in your hand as you walk or drive. Don't use wired baby monitors or let kids play with radiating cell phones, as biological consequences have been documented. Use a wired earpiece that keeps the phone the furthest from your head, and use landlines whenever possible. Asked what the take-away is from the studies to use caution, Phillips concluded,

"If you look at all of the research being done on this, it's all from outside this country. People want to believe their technology is safe. I do. I would love to believe it, but I know better."20

Bayer and Monsanto — 2 Destructive Behemoths Become 1

Visit the Mercola Video Library

By Dr. Mercola

Just when you thought the takeover of the global food supply couldn’t get a whole lot worse, it did.

Monsanto recently announced it has accepted Bayer AG’s $56 billion takeover offer (a deal totaling $66 billion if you take into account Monsanto’s debt),1,2,3 which will make the new entity the largest seed and pesticide company in the world.

The merger is expected to be finalized by the end of 2017. Should the deal end up being blocked by regulators, Bayer will pay Monsanto $2 billion.

“As we look at the future, we think the combination of taking the Monsanto stable: biotechnology, seeds and data science, and combining that with chemistry, we unlock future innovations growers desperately need at the moment,” Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant said.4

Warning: Troubled Times Ahead

The news has generated deep concerns, and Global Justice Now is calling on anti-competition regulators to investigate the takeover bid.

Bernie Sanders has also gone on record saying the takeover is “a threat to all Americans” and needs to be blocked.5 He also wants the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to “reopen its investigation of Monsanto’s monopoly over the seed and chemical market.”

If the merger goes through, we’ll be left with just four companies providing 59 percent of the global seeds and 64 percent of the world’s pesticides.6,7 Aisha Dodwell with Global Justice Now summarized it well when, on September 14, she said:8

"Today's announcement of Bayer's takeover of Monsanto is a disaster for the world's food system.

The creation of this mega-agribusiness would mean that a single terrifying corporate behemoth is now the world's biggest company for both seeds and pesticides, putting them firmly in control of the world's farming inputs.

In an industry that was already dominated by only six big agribusinesses, this latest news will lead to even further market concentration as more mergers and takeovers will now become inevitable.

We're speeding towards a situation where our global food system is controlled by a very few giant corporate entities who will have complete control of our food — what we eat and how it is grown.”

Farmers Worry Bayer-Monsanto Behemoth May Ruin Them

In a recent New York Times article,9 Kentucky farmer Don Halcomb reveals he fully expects his profits to disappear by year’s end due to the combination of rising costs and dwindling crop prices. Halcomb, who grows corn, soy, wheat and barley on 7,000 acres, is already producing these commodities at a loss.

Over the past 10 years, the price of a bag of seed corn has risen from $80 to $300 — a price hike he attributes to the consolidation of seed companies, which reduces competition.

The latest merger between Bayer and Monsanto is only likely to make matters worse, no matter how Bayer and Monsanto executives try to frame it as a boon for famers.

Bayer AG’s CEO, Werner Baumann, claims “it is not our plan or our ambition or our intent to prevent farmers from having choice."10 But the history of Monsanto and Bayer both suggest it would be naïve in the extreme to believe him.

Additionally, several other major seed companies are also in takeover or merger negotiations, including ChemChina and Syngenta, and DuPont and Dow Chemical. If either of those go through, the market will be even more consolidated.

Many Farmers Now Reconsider Use of GE Seeds 

On a positive note, the ever-increasing costs are causing many farmers to reconsider their use of genetically engineered (GE) seeds. It has become increasingly difficult to justify the higher prices for seeds, while crop prices diminish.

Part of the problem is that farmers are simply growing too much GE corn and soy, which makes it difficult to recoup their investment. The threat of even higher prices for GE seeds and chemicals makes their future even more uncertain. As noted by The Wall Street Journal:11

“The dominance of genetically modified crops is under threat.
Since their introduction to U.S. farms 20 years ago, genetically engineered seeds have become like mobile phones — multifunctional and ubiquitous … 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates this year that 94 percent of soybean acres were planted with biotech varieties, and 92 percent of corn acres. Today, farmers are finding it harder to justify the high and often rising prices for modified, or GMO, seed, given the measly returns …

Spending on crop seeds has nearly quadrupled since 1996, when Monsanto Co. became the first of the companies to launch biotech varieties. Yet major crop prices have skidded lower for three years, and this year, many farmers stand to lose money.”

GE Seeds Fail to Live Up to Promises

The development of “superweeds” resistant to the herbicides so generously doused on GE crops are another factor giving farmers pause. As farmers must work harder to combat the weeds and spend more money on chemicals, many see their profits vanishing at an ever faster pace.

Ohio farmer Joe Logan echoes Halcomb’s sentiments, saying the price of biotech seeds prevents him from making a profit. Today, the soybean seed Logan uses costs him nearly five times more than what he paid 20 years ago.

To save money, he plans on sowing mostly non-GE soybeans next year. Kyle Stackhouse, who grows corn and soybeans in Indiana, quit planting GE crops and is now making a profit.  

“After turning his soybean fields and nearly three-quarters of his corn fields to biotech varieties, Stackhouse decided about 10 years ago that biotech seeds weren’t delivering harvests big enough to justify their price.

‘The [genetic] traits weren’t putting dollars in our pocket,’ he said,” The Wall Street Journal reports.12

“Stackhouse estimates he typically spends about $53 per acre on soybean seeds and $40 on pesticides, versus $83 he would have spent on biotech soybean seeds [and] an additional … $24 on related crop chemicals. That puts him ahead about $14 per acre on costs.”

Monsanto — A Destroyer of the World

In addition to GE seeds and its flagship product, the herbicide Roundup, Monsanto has also been a leading producer of Agent Orange, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), DDT, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) and aspartame — the history of which is summarized in “The Complete History of Monsanto, ‘The World’s Most Evil Corporation,’”13 originally published by Waking Times in 2014.14

Monsanto also made its mark on history by participating in the Manhattan Project to build the first atomic bomb, thereby becoming a “war horse” ally to the United States government — an alliance that still holds today. As noted in “The Complete History,” article:

“To add insult to world injury, Monsanto and their partners in crime Archer Daniels Midland, Sodexo and Tyson Foods write and sponsor The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009: HR 875.15 This 'act' gives the corporate factory farms a virtual monopoly to police and control all foods grown anywhere, including one’s own backyard, and provides harsh penalties and jail sentences for those who do not use chemicals and fertilizers. President Obama … gave his approval.

With this Act, Monsanto claims that only GM [genetically modified] foods are safe and organic or homegrown foods potentially spread disease, therefore must be regulated out of existence for the safety of the world … As further revelations have broken open regarding this evil giant’s true intentions, Monsanto crafted the ridiculous HR 933 Continuing Resolution,16aka Monsanto Protection Act, which Obama robo-signed into law as well.

This law states that no matter how harmful Monsanto’s GMO crops are and no matter how much devastation they wreak upon the country, U.S. federal courts cannot stop them from continuing to plant them anywhere they choose. Yes, Obama signed a provision that makes Monsanto above any laws and makes them more powerful than the government itself.”

Bayer Also Has a Long, Dark, Destructive History of Genocide

Bayer AG is no different. Founded in Germany in 1863 by Friedrich Bayer and Johann Wescott, the company is perhaps most well-known for being the largest producer of aspirin and other commonly used drugs. But it too has a long, sordid history of creating poisons and mass destruction.17 During World War II, Bayer (then I.G. Farben) produced Zyklon B gas, used in the Nazi gas chambers to eradicate 11 million people whose only crime was to be born a Jew.  

According to AHRP.org, the company was also “intimately involved with the human experimental atrocities committed by Mengele at Auschwitz.”18 In one case, Bayer purchased 150 healthy female prisoners from the camp commander of Auschwitz for use as test subjects for a new sleep drug. All the test subjects died, and another order for prisoners was promptly placed.

While some of its board members ended up being arrested and tried for their crimes against humanity, others escaped and helped create the Federal Reserve.19 If you think the passing of time might have made this corporate entity kinder, safer and gentler, think again.

In 2003, it was revealed Bayer sold blood-clotting medicine tainted with the HIV virus to Asian, Latin American and Europe in the mid-1980s.20 The drug, Factor VIII concentrate, was worth millions of dollars, and the company continued to sell the tainted drug for a year after the contamination was discovered. In Hong Kong and Taiwan alone, more than 100 hemophiliacs contracted HIV and died after using the medicine.

More Bayer Atrocities and Malfeasance

Bayer’s drug Trasylol — used to control bleeding during surgery — was eventually found to be responsible for at least a thousand deaths each month for the 14 years it was on the market.21 In 2006, documents proved Bayer hid evidence showing unfavorable results from the drug in order to continue selling it. Lawsuits have also been filed against Bayer for the untimely death of 190 young women taking their birth control pill Yaz, which raises your risk of blood clots by 300 percent.

Its top-selling Flintstones Vitamins for kids is another piece of evidence suggesting the company has no clue or concern about health, as it contains a number of questionable if not outright toxic ingredients, including aspartame, cupric oxide, aluminum, coal tar, hydrogenated soybean oil (trans fat; associated with heart disease), zinc oxide, ferrous fumarate and GE corn starch.

Between 2006 and 2007, Bayer was also responsible for contaminating U.S. rice imports with three unapproved varieties of GE rice under development by Bayer CropScience. Bayer also makes neonicotinoid pesticides, suspected of being responsible for mass die-offs of bees around the world, thereby threatening the global food supply, and made the plastic chemical bisphenol-A (BPA), now known to have a dangerous impact on the human endocrine system.

In short, Bayer’s history is just as dark and unethical as Monsanto’s, if not more, and some are rightfully referring to the merger of these two destructive behemoths as a “marriage made in hell.”22

Billions Against Bayer

The Bayer-Monsanto merger will make the subsequent entity all the more powerful to bully farmers into paying more and pressuring and manipulating governments into accepting the unacceptable risks involved. In response, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is calling for consumers everywhere to boycott Bayer in a new campaign called “Billions Against Bayer” — the continuation of the successful “Millions Against Monsanto” campaign. In a recent press release, OCA says:23

“Two of the world’s most foul corporate criminals will be one. Monsanto will pack up its headquarters and head overseas. The much-maligned Monsanto name will be retired. But a corporate criminal by any other name — or size — is still a corporate criminal.

This merger only heightens the urgency, and strengthens our resolve, to hunt down the corporations that are poisoning everything in sight. We will follow them to the ends of the earth, if need be. We will expose their crimes. We will end the toxic tyranny. We will become the Billions Against Bayer. And we will need your help. Monsanto (and Bayer) are on trial. You be the judge.”